Of course they are. The more they get to know their classmates the less ignorant they become and hence the less weird behaviors they exhibit.
Eh. Males on their own don’t tend to exhibit that behavior. It’s less ignorance and more ape like competitiveness. When you put them together the testosterone compounds and leads to machismo, which results in a bunch of dumb shit.
This argument is saturated in assumptions and is difficult to swallow.
The idea of lack of close physical contact promoting bad behaviour is a well studied phenomenon in many areas, including road rage, and online discourse.
So I actually read the article — you should try it some time — and it literally states males exhibit this behavior due to competitiveness.
So no, my argument is not saturated in assumptions. It’s saturated in experience, and backed by science.
There are studies of men growing up with sisters are more likely to act in a woman’s best interest, than the stereotypical macho douchebag persona
After a quick read of the article, it’s not measuring how matcho they are, but how competitive they are. Even that is by proxy. Men who have lived with more men will tend towards a game of skill for a larger payout, over a fixed payout.
I personally consider the risk management of being competitive to be an extremely important life skill. Knowing your capabilities requires practise and comparison. Men also tend to change their behaviour patterns when a women is present, particularlyyounger men. “Machoism” is often just our tribal bonding instincts kicking in. It let’s young men learn the limits of their own capabilities and the capabilities and temperament of these they are working closely with.
After a quick read of the article
Definitely NOT what you want to read when talking about academic studies and statistics. It unfortunately makes you sound like an armchair expertEdit: I misunderstood the comment and was unnecessarily rude
I wasn’t reading and critiquing the underlying paper, I was primarily checking if the headline and methods matched up. They don’t. Confidence and controlled risk taking are very different from “macho”.
They also seem to make the correlation ≠ causation fallacy, though that might be fixed in the actual paper. Is it living in a mixed house makes men less confident, or are less confident men more likely to end up in a mixed house?
I’m definitely no more than a reasonably informed layman in sociology. I do have scientific training, however, so can spot the more glaring signs of a journalist going beyond what a paper says, or the data backs up.
My mistake for misunderstanding what you meant then! I thought you were referring to the scientific article itself, not the news article
Testosterone spikes inhibit risk assessment. Testosterone spikes based on social circumstance rather than the time of day. When there are smaller males/females around you can dominate, testosterone spikes. When the other males are bigger, stronger and more aggressive, testosterone doesn’t spike. Making you avoid conflict instead.
A lack of risk assessment, along with increased impulsivity, is a feature. Useful to get males to initiate fighting.
Reducing human behavior to a single hormone is a choice that is not very representative of reality.
I never said that. It’s only a factor.
Testosterone has complex effects. It is also one of the few hormones that significantly changes in the male brain. Learning to both control and utilise its effects is critical to the proper development of a man.
Testosterone changes your risk assessments, rather than jamming them. Uncontrolled, it can be problematic. It takes practice and training to channel that in productive directions. Without that practice, it’s effects are either bottled up (with a tendency to explode) or lead to fighting, or crude domineering. Neither is healthy.
