In diesem – auch ansonsten lesenswerten – Artikel ist ein interessanter Absatz über Geschlechterunterschiede:
And finally, what’s most relevant for the topic of this conference, sex differences in cognition. They aren’t literally sex differences in the sense of being inherent trait of the corresponding sexes, rather, it’s a spectrum where a typical woman is closer to the feminine end of it and a typical man closer to the masculine end of it because that is what evolutionary niches of our sexes demanded for much of our history and what they got rewarded for with reproductive success but that doesn’t mean we won’t see outliers on both sides or even demographics where cognition of typical male or female are completely shifted because their environment had different demands and rewarded different strategies.
Das ist soweit hier im Blog ja immer wieder Thema gewesen: Geschlechterunterschiede sind nicht essentialistisch oder absolut, sondern es sind unterschiedliche Fähigkeitsausprägungen im Schnitt, häufig eben Normalverteilungen mit unterschiedlichen Mittelwerten, aber sich überlappenden Trägern.
Overall, it appears there’s a lot more feminine men around than masculine women, however. People that are much closer to the extremes than normal are dysfunctional, borderline personality on the feminine end and autism on the masculine.
Das geht in die Richtung der Theorien von Simon Baron-Cohen
Physiologically, it consists of three main aspects, dominance of left or right hemisphere, amounts of grey and white matter and density of lateral and longitudinal connections, meaning either between hemispheres or front to back within them and hormonal differences, primarily estrogen and testosterone. This has many consequences that we will now examine.
Also:
- Dominanz der rechten oder linken Gehirnhälfte
- graue und weiße Substanz im Gehirn und die Dichte der lateralen und longitudinalen Verbindungen zwischen den beiden Gehirnhälften und zwischen deren Vorder- Und Hinterseiten
- Hormonelle Unterschiede, insbesondere Östrogene und Testosteron
Prioritizing prey response means higher neuroticism, flight or freeze in response to threats and avoidance of risky situations that would produce those threats in the first place, including social conflicts, which manifests as higher agreeableness.
Predator response means lower neuroticism, fight response to threats, willingness to seek out risky opportunities for higher gains as well as willingness to engage in competition and conflict to acquire and defend interests, which produces higher disagreeableness.
Das wäre also die Idee, dass Frauen eher Fluchttiere sind und Männer eher Raubtiere.
At scale, this means feminine people operate as herds where safety is obtained in numbers, conformity is expected and the threat is getting ostracized and left behind, which has meant death in much of history. They’ll organize as nominally equal but with constant covert competition going on underneath with an effort expended more to keep others down at the same or below one’s level than at raising oneself up, more on that later.
Das ganze aus der „Fluchttierperspektive“ einzuordnen klingt interessant. Wäre die Frage ob das nur auf den ersten Blick so ist oder ob das ein gutes Bild ist. Es macht schon Sinn, dass in einer Herde eine gewisse Gleichheit herrscht, weil gleichzeitig jeder für sich alleine arbeitet. Gleichzeitig ist auf einer anderen Ebene Konkurrenz vorhanden, die aber verdeckt werden muss.
Masculine people operate as packs where safety is obtained by cooperation and mutual insurance, loyalty and reciprocity are expected and threat is violent punishment, possibly death. They’ll organize into hierarchy and compete overtly for positions in it.
Auch hier ein interessantes Bild. Die männliche Gruppe ist eben auf eine andere Form der Zusammenarbeit ausgelegt, einfach weil deren Tätigkeiten wie Jagd oder Kampf andere Gefahren mit sich bringen.
In terms of perception, the feminine are empathizing, which contrary to the common use of the word doesn’t refer to being kind, merciful or otherwise nice, it only refers to intuitively perceiving face expressions, body language or tone of voice and modeling emotions and social relations from that information. They can tell feelings of people towards each other, relative status of people in the group, how much experience someone has interacting with people, how ambitious someone is and so on. None of this is foolproof, people have learned how this perception works and how to game it, most obviously pick up artists, but most of the time, the information is highly accurate.
Auch eine interessante Einordnung, weil es ein etwas anderes Bild zeichnet, in dem nicht alles nur nett und empathisch ist. Es geht eben nur darum, dass man bestimmte Informationen besser lesen kann, was daraus folgt ist eine andere Sache.
What’s done with that information is a separate matter. It is however limited to the present and ability to consider any long-term consequences is lacking, as is any thinking at scale where higher numbers of people are concerned. The idea of identifiable types of people existing with specific traits and each of those types having a distribution with mean and outliers is completely alien to female mind, the best it can handle is clear distinction between good and bad people. Thus the feminine mind is prone to AXALT fallacy, meaning All X Are Like That, or NAXALT whenever trying to defend a group that’s good according to prevailing narrative.
Das klingt etwas hart. Aber es könnte in der Tendenz interessant sein. Wer eher darauf setzt das er die Zeichen aufnimmt, die Leute gerade senden und das als das wichtigste ansieht denkt in der Tat in der Gegenwart. Etwas anderes wäre es daraus herzuleiten, was die langfristigen Folgen sind und wie Gruppen ggfs strategisch agieren. Im ganzen klingt es zu absolut. Interessant ist natürlich, dass sich dabei die einfache Einordnung aus den intersektionalen Theorien in Gute Gruppen und Schlechte Gruppen etwas nachvollziehen lassen würde, wobei diese ja auch nicht logisch, sondern empathisch belegt wird.
Further, the feminine model language and are much more skillful with it than the masculine, however, unlike the masculine, they don’t transfer information in the literal content of words, rather, it’s all signaling, words have emotional valence meant to change how the person on the receiving end feels about a given subject.
Auch hier wieder etwas absolut. Natürlich können auch Frauen deutlich kommunizieren, wobei sie sicherlich auf einer persönlichen Ebene auch eher als Männer auf das emotionale und auf die Signale achten.
The masculine on the other hand model physical world and systems, this means they can intuit how objects in space relate to one another, how they interact and how a system of such interacting parts will evolve over time. This systematizing isn’t limited to physical world but can also manifest as modeling how people themselves work, like what I’m doing here right now, or modeling how a society will evolve over time given specific trends and incentives, which is what much of our work consists of and is also a reason why every man thinks about Rome and its collapse.
Da wäre im Prinzip emotional vs system und dinge vs Leute angesprochen, was ja auch hier im Blog schon Thema war.
Masculine use of language is much more straightforward than feminine, tell the truth, provide explanation, negotiate, give promise. Word are actual measurements of the outside world and events in it.
Als grober Unterschied sicher richtig, aber eben wiederum nicht absolut.
You also see these differences in the way the two sexes complain about each other, women complain that man objectify persons, particularly them, and personal statements, and men complain that women personalize the objective, such as taking general statements about women as personal insults. Likewise, you can see women using their verbal abilities to ask for directions whereas men want to drive based on their spatial model, regardless of whether that model is correct or not. The point here isn’t to deride either mode of cognition and communication, they both have their purpose and we’re paying dearly for not learning to understand and to some extent apply both.
Auch eine interessante Aussage:
- Frauen beschweren sich, dass Männer Personen zu Objekten machen
- Männer beschweren sich, dass Frauen objektive Aussagen ins persönliche ziehen
This is observed even in infants, small girls pay attention to faces and boys to objects and it translates into how the feminine and masculine practice acquisition, the former manipulates minds, the latter manipulates physical objects.
In terms of capital, feminine will seek to first acquire attention. There is no manipulation of minds possible without first having their attention and even negative attention is preferable to no attention. For actual women, this comes most easily via their bodies, particularly if they’re attractive, a trait which they naturally seek to increase, but otherwise it takes social connections, networks and prestige. All of this can then be utilized for influence, you’ll see women on Instagram explicitly identifying as influencers. Feminine thus try to develop skills that help them acquire and utilize all of these.
Die Frau will danach also Aufmerksamkeit in Einfluss umwandeln. Da wäre Influencer in der Tat ein beliebter Job.
Männer sind aber andererseits auch auf Aufmerksamkeit zum Statuserwerb aus. Deswegen machen ja gerade junge Männer diverse riskantere Aktionen.
In contrast, the masculine will seek to increase their agency by increasing their self-control, strength, agility and endurance, skills for transforming nature into materials, transformation and combination of materials into consumables or other useful objects, moving self, other people or things around and finally, use of violence whether for defense or offense. Other forms of sought capital will then be tools that increase all these abilities beyond what be done with one’s own body, loyalty of other people that will cooperate on these things and territory where to do so.
Klingt gut, die Frage wäre aber ob man es so einfach abgrenzen kann.
For both feminine and masculine, money will be a useful form of capital as it’s a universal means of exchange that can be used to attain all the other things and can be likewise obtained by application of their own skills. And once again, we’re paying dearly when we specialize only where our biases lead us, men eventually find out that they must look good, signal their status and make connections too, likewise women sometimes find out being able to do basic work or drive a car can make them a lot more valuable to a potential mate.
Da wird er ja auch etwas allgemeiner und führt an, dass es nicht ganz so schwarz und weiß ist.
Before getting into strategies, I need to explain justificationary and falsificationary modes of thinking.
Justifying effectively means our brains automatically make connections that maintain our self-image of good and innocent people and rationalize our actions that were or will only be performed based on our immediate desires. Plausible deniability for any wrong done is always preserved, responsibility evaded, other people blamed, victim status maintained. They’ll always tell you what happened to them, but they’ll never tell you why. This further manifests as agreeableness where required opinions for the so-called polite society are rationalized as true and those that deviate from it as false without actual truth content ever being examined. Accounting is performed very selectively.
Das ist ein sehr interessanter Abschnitt. Er passt gut zu gegenwärtigen feministischen Theorien.
On the other hand, falsificationary thinking involves examination of these internal justifications, consideration of how they could be wrong, how one could be led astray by his own emotions and thoughts, producing self-reflection, responsibility and honesty, as well as disagreeableness when it’s applied to justifications voiced by others. Accounting is performed exhaustively.
Auch hier ist es natürlich nicht schwarz-weiß. Aber gerade die bei Frauen beliebten feministischen Theorien haben ja ein großes Problem mit „Verantwortungsübernahme“ und vereinfachen stark, zb indem eine Ungleichheit direkt als Beleg für Diskriminierung gewertet wird.
Both scale with intelligence, which is to say, it can enable you to see through nonsense justifications, whether your own or someone else’s, more easily but it can likewise enable you to make more elaborate justifications.
Und Intelligenz kann es einem auch erlauben sich unlogische Rechtfertigungen schön zu denken bzw einen theoretischen Überbau zu so einfachen Regeln wie „Männer schlecht, Frauen gut“ erschaffen, der sie weniger banal klingen lässt.
Justificationary mode of thinking isn’t so much feminine as it is the default for every individual. We’re all probably a falsificationary bunch here but if you’re anything like me, you’ve experienced a justificationary phase in your youth. However, it does seem to be the case that feminine minds have a much harder time switching to falsificationary mode, partly because they’re more influenced both by their emotions and because they need the social approval. There is however another clear reason why women specifically can stick with justifying throughout their lives and that is that they are rewarded for it or in any case never punished, there is always enough members of both sexes willing to take their justifications at face value, especially if they follow social consensus. Men historically tended to beat justifications and irresponsibility out of each other and while this is rarely the case today, they still tend to figure out at some point that irresponsibility will get them nowhere in life and that nothing repulses women as much as being agreeable to them.
Auch schön gesagt. Man lässt sie damit durchkommen, während das bei Männern nicht der Fall ist.
Now, specific strategies that people get what they want from other people aside from neutral exchange of value.
For feminine, it’s the aforementioned manipulation which is also more often than not an external expression of justificationary mode of thinking. This includes faith-healing, which is sedation by psychological relief without solving problems, overloading which is distracting by providing more information or misinformation than recipient can make sense of, obscurantism and suggestion. These things can unintuitively often be desirable because a lot of people, should they just keep hearing the truth about themselves, other people and the world around them would likely go crazy and go on a rampage, though primary purpose appears to be managing children.
Next, there’s seduction which is not in itself an issue if it’s delivered on but it’s also possible to seduce someone into doing something for you with a false promise that won’t or can’t be delivered on or to seduce into a hazard that would either never be agreed to if the consequences were understood or appeal to high time preference at the cost of what’s good for the individual in the long run.
Then there are feminine means of coercion, what we used to call GSRRM, an acronym for gossiping, shaming, rallying, ridicule and moralizing. We don’t use it so much nowadays because the list of identified strategies has since grown to the point it fills most of the slide. There’s now disapproval, denial, psychologizing, outraging, undermining, propagandizing, shouting down, silencing, cancelling, deplatforming, reputation destruction, doxing and institutional abuse or threat of any of these. Combining this with their evasion of responsibility, they can outright cry out in pain as they strike you.
Eine schöne Darstellung der gerade bei Frauen häufig anzutreffenden Strategien, gerade in dieser Kompaktheit dargestellt.
If you want to learn how to detect and deal with these strategies, buy Noah’s book.
In contrast, masculine coercive strategy is just violence or threat of thereof. The masculine can of course also try to lie to get what they want but it’s much harder because they don’t believe their own lies.
Die Darstellung hingegen ist sehr knapp.
Keep in mind these strategies on both sides are in themselves amoral, what makes them moral or immoral is only who they’re used on, that is, it’s immoral to use them on ingroup members who do no wrong but moral to use them on enemies or to punish and correct the behavior of misbehaving ingroup members.
We’ve already mentioned how attitude to responsibility is affected, the feminine will try to evade responsibility whenever possible because being responsible for something creates potential conflict with anyone holding them accountable or anyone with designs on the same thing that they’re responsible for. Feminine will not choose responsibility as long as irresponsible options remain available.
Also die Herleitung der fehlenden Verantwortlichkeit daraus, dass man damit Konflikt vermeidet. Wenn keiner an etwas schuld ist, dann muss auch niemand ausgegrenzt etc werden
Masculine on the other hand is much more willing to take on responsibility provided it comes with authority over that which they’re responsible over or in any case when that responsibility is appropriately rewarded. Such options are increasingly limited today, men are expected to take on responsibility without authority, such as within their families, and responsibility within normal jobs is less rewarded than ever with men left feeling like useful idiots if they do more than the minimum expected work.
Auch ein interessanter Gedanke. Gab es früher mehr „erfüllende Verwantwortungsübernahme“?
This translates into attitude towards relationship as well. All relationships are transactional but where masculine approach them with reciprocity and are loyal because of the sense of debt that must be repaid, feminine view relationships in terms of what they provide in the present and will readily discard them when better opportunities offering access to higher status people, more influence, or simply more material satisfaction emerge.
Wäre die Frage ob man das so generell sagen kann.
Differences in perception in time vs. over time and in responsibility then lead to feminine being consumptive and destructive and masculine being productive and capitalizing, though to be fair, this has a mirror image in masculine disagreeableness and willingness to engage in conflict being potentially destructive of feminine social capital.
Er zeichnet so ein einfaches aber logisch klingendes Bild, dass man aufpassen muss, dass es nicht zu vereinfacht und pauschal ist.
We further make a distinction between feminine being adapted to familial and social scale and masculine to economic and political scale, but this may paint an inaccurate picture. Masculine element within family and society is needed so that there’s someone who can bear and teach responsibility and families and societies are stronger for this. On the other end, the feminine is extremely well adapted to politics wherever networking and manipulation achieve political goals, not so well adapted where it takes negotiation and loyalty, furthermore where masculine are involved in politics for the interests of their tribe, the feminine are in it out of self-interest and will only act in the interest of the tribe where incentives are aligned.
Könnte auch ein Grund sein, warum weibliche Politiker eher Frauenpolitik machen wollen.
Gefällt mir Wird geladen …
Alles Evolution 