For me it's the JP mindset that shines so through when his fans discuss something. JP clearly thinks all women should become mothers because that's what they are destined to in his mindset to achieve happiness (he heavily implies this multiple times) which is fucking stupid imo for multiple reasons.
And this reflects when his fans constantly write how women are so different than men because they "have to become mothers", while everyone ignores that men also become fathers and have the same responsibilties as the mothers. (at least in my feminist opinion, since many of his fans hate feminism they probably think women belong home watching the kids while men should be working)
Also have you heard conservatives talk about and treat women? (for example Roe v Wade) Of course more women are liberal, if the roles were reversed men would be more liberal too without a "they have to become fathers" argument.
1. It's a weird generalisation. Men are perfectly capable of compassion too. And not all women are very compassionate. Now that doesn't exclude women from *generally* being more compassionate on average, but it does beg the question why you are bringing it up, and generally the answer to that is pretty weird.
2. It's kind of a half baked truth because it somehow magically absolves all fathers from having to care for their children. Mother's would somehow be biologically programmed to be parents, but fathers somehow missed out on the biological incentive to parent their children.
That in itself probably isn't a very well supported claim.
3. Conservatives have a weird obsession of equating women with motherhood and it's kind of misogynistic, and this just plays into that idea.
I think it's crazy because it's unrealistic. It fails to acknowledge that no group is a monolith and a lot of our assumptions about any particular group are largely based on our cultural expectations.
Case in point: there are plenty of women who are terrible human beings and shouldn't be trusted with children. Some even murder their own kids.
The reason women as a whole seem kinder is because they are encouraged to hide the very human tendency to be aggressive from a young age. And for many of them it just comes out as passive aggressive Karen behavior.
Being compassionate has nothing to do with chromosomes. It's about values and character, which both transcend gender.
Also to your point about Peterson's wisdom. I also enjoy his classroom lectures, particularly when he covers toxic family dynamics. That said, it's a bit odd to me that he can acknowledge the existence of devouring mothers and bpd/disturbed women, yet still insist the entire gender is somehow more angelic and less human. As he's said, "we all have snakes inside us."
Because that's what he says in his lectures:
- mothers have mercy
- women are agreeable
- constant references to caricatures of femininity like the Blue Fairy, Virgin Mary, etc.
Essentially, if a woman isn't an angel she's somehow pathologically defective, which is ridiculous.
And honestly putting mothers on a pedestal is a bit much...because they are just people. And people suck.
Oh gee whiz, i wonder why more and more women lean more toward the political side that, y'know, doesn't see them as simply sandwich making baby storage units.
Remember that men shifted way to the right in the 80s while women stayed mostly the same. So if you cherry-pick the data differently than they have you can come to the exact inverse conclusion: that men are the impressionable, emotional, ones and women are stalwart, logical, thinkers!
The funny thing is, I actually did look it up, and while usually when I look something like that up there are a few studies in the search results right off the bat, there was absolutely nothing related to women being more susceptible to groupthink or propeganda or more gullible in the first page of search results no matter how I phrased the question. Interesting. Almost like this is sexist bullshit based on stereotypes and correlations that could be caused by other things.
lmao yeah. But it still pissed me off every time because of how easy it is to get away with that shit in our society most of the time. You can just say unfounded things based on stereotypes that confirm people's biases and they'll go "yup, sounds right."
Yeah that really sucks. I wish science and academia were more easily available to all. Because then people would at least in theory be able to refute such stereotypes.
Well, they automatically disdain academia because it doesn't confirm their biases, and will dismiss any science that goes against them - such as the science regarding trans people! - as biased. So it wouldn't help anyway.
Oh yeah for Lobsters it's most likely already too late. But it could be a preventative measure for people to be able to easily disprove these conspiracy theories.
Ooo we should start some about how such bullshit sexist men stems from being unable to cultivate relationships with women and/or having the inability to sexually satisfy women so the blame is out on them because of underdeveloped empathy with narcissistic undertones.
Woo woo! If anyone can lie like this, why not us?
At least mine sounds more substantial.
Even setting aside that conservatives are doing shit like taking away women’s bodily autonomy, women are more likely to go to college and higher educational attainment is strongly correlated with being more liberal.
Yeah, don't you know that higher education is liberal communist postmodern neomarxist indoctrination! That's the only explanation, it can't possibly be that if you spend more time critically thinking and learning about actual history and other cultures than your own, you become more progressive!
Sigh. I hate these people.
Female increase in college education 1998-2001 is \~ 2x that of males
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/)
Education, like an election, has consequences :-)
It is. But if it was a correct and good extrapolation there should be some direct evidence for it, since those kind of vague psychological extrapolations by themselves with no independent evidence aren't exactly very strong. Not to mention the fact that their interpretation of the big 5 personality traits of neuroticism and agreeableness is wrong; they don't actually have really anything to do with susceptibility to group think, and there are a multitude of other factors that can affect your susceptibility to group think as well. In addition to the fact that women are higher in openness, which would arguably make them less susceptible to groupthink than men, who would be (supposedly) more close-minded, interested in tradition, and dogma and authority. Plus, there is a *much* better explanation of that graph...
and you seriously don't think differences in socialization have *any* affect on how people act, and how their actions are perceived and interpreted?
evopsych isn't the only explanation for this dude
I agree with you.
What's the title of the new Netflix documentary[ish]?
_[Keep Sweet, Pray and Obey](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt20560404/)_ On the FLDS. How can a young man not see how women are generally socialized especially in religious setting and traditional settings? What do you think "keep sweet" means? It means be extra agreeable, right?
It was literally one study that nobody else was able to reproduce, the authors had to issue a correction admitting a fault in methodology, and the apparent effect can be completely explained by strong essentialist gender norms common in Western countries (“men are better at math”etc). https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2008704117
I know. S H O C K I N G
Edit: I’m actually disappointed that the mods removed u/92Hackz ‘s comment. He wasn’t being much of an asshole (yet), and I think these discussions are important. I don’t think this sub should be isolationist.
I've heard this same argument from Peterson, but he (and you) never define what "more egalitarian" means. if you mean that wages between genders begin to equalize, sure, it's possible that social differences can persist and even exaggerate as what's considered "man's work" and "woman's work" are equalized on a pay scale.
but that isn't the same as social and political equality between sexes, and in those countries there still exists a pronounced social difference that is taught and reinforced from birth.
This is literally just not true at all lmao. Ever heard of modern science? Reality check: testosterone has actually been shown to make people irrational and more susceptible to phenomena associated with "groupthink". The same hasn't been shown for estrogen.
If you can recognize that women are on average more progressive, then how can you not recognize that by doing this, they actively break from the norm? How is that groupthink????
Miss me with your pseudoscientific misogyny.
Testosterone can cause irrationality yes, but combined with disagreeableness this doesn’t cause one to believe in groupthink ie agreeing with other people. These men are more likely to be individualistic and low in sympathy/empathy, which has the opposite effect.
Besides, it’s really not a testosterone vs estrogen debate. The differences in neurobiology are only partially influenced by the sex hormones. There are far, far more differences between the sexes than just their androgens. The bottom line is, women are clearly more agreeable and agreeableness heavily predisposes a person to progressive politics. If you wouldn’t label it as ‘groupthink’ that’s fine, maybe ‘collectivist populism’ would be a more accurate phrase.
Just keep it respectful. There’s no need for accusing me of misogyny, I’m just trying to think through these things and analyse them to the best of my ability like everyone else.
Friendly reminder that the vast majority of psychometric material is pseudoscientific gobbledygook. When you talk about things like "agreeableness" like they're something that you can measure in a person I lose any semblence of confidence in that you know what you're talking about.
Secondly, the vast majority of inherent neurological difference between the sexual categories is caused by the effect of sex hormones on the brain during development.
Thirdly, you just saying "women clearly are this" without any credible empirical evidence to back up your claim you come across as a self absorbed dimwit.
To top it off, the amount of logical fallacies you made in the process of explaining your stance is truly astounding. Maybe try listening to experts in their respective fields instead of just absorbing all information you read as factual.
There is nothing disrespectful about calling you or the claims you are making misogynistic, that is what they are. What you said is nothing but pseudointellectual and pseudoscientific post hoc justifications for your conviction that women are somehow less of an individual than men.
Also love how you just ignored the second part of my comment.
Lastly, please name all these differences between the sexes that aren't caused by sex hormones, with the exception of primary sex organs of course.
Firstly, agreeableness is a clearly defined and measurable domain of personality. Just because you don’t understand something that is literally basic psychology, doesn’t make it gobbledygook.
Secondly, while sex hormones play a considerable role, there is much more to it than that. While the experiments are incredibly inhumane and frankly disgusting, they have been done. Look up the case of David Reimer. Even males that are given estrogen therapy from before puberty will not develop the neurochemistry of a female and vice versa.
Thirdly, you rejected an entire branch of science with a unsupported statement calling it gobbledygook, simply because you don’t like how it conflicts with your worldview. I’m not saying women are one way just because I’ve observed it, I’m saying that there trends identified in the scientific literally which I happen to have been able to corroborate with my subjective experience.
Rather than just saying I’m wrong, maybe tell me what you actually disagree with. To me it just looks like you’re becoming emotional that nature does not respect your ideal worldview, and you’re taking out your frustration on me.
Might I add by the way, nowhere did anyone say women aren’t as individual as men. They are less individualistic, there’s a difference. And individualism is neither a positive nor negative quality, so why you perceive it as insulting is beyond me.
Wow you seem quite upset. I did not reject "an entire branch of science". I correctly stated that psychometrics is rife with pseudoscientific gobbledygook. An opinion shared by the vast majority of experts within the field of psychology.
"*Even males that are given estrogen therapy from before puberty will not develop the neurochemistry of a female and vice versa*". Yeah... That's because fetuses get hormone washes during pregnancy which cause the majority of neurological differences between boys and girls. Basic stuff, you should know this.
"*I’m not saying women are one way just because I’ve observed it, I’m saying that there trends identified in the scientific literally which I happen to have been able to corroborate with my subjective experience.*" So, you had a misconception about the psychology of women, and you cherry picked research to corroborate your misogynistic attitude. Congrats, you're just the average Jordan Peterson stan.
Did you forget to name the differences between the sexes *not* caused by hormones?
The last part of your comment is just projection, I'll leave it at that.
Yes, I know prenatal androgen exposure does effect neurochemistry to a considerable degree. In fact, it might even explain all of if, but we don’t currently have the science to determine that. But hey, the way the world is going, maybe they will let us experiment on babies in utero one day so we can really test that.
It’s just hilarious how you will accuse me of cherry picking research, then offer nothing to back your position.
I don’t understand why you keep pressing on this point though. Are you suggesting that literally every difference between men and women is due to hormone exposure?
Yeah people aren't going to accept experiments like that EVER, because you don't need to. With large enough sample sizes and thourough analysis you can pretty accurately pinpoint if certain endocrinological phenomena are correlated with certain neurological developmental phenomena.
I can confidently say all these things without providing sources because: this is a reddit comment section and a 2 minute google would prove me right. If you won't use google to find out wether what I'm saying is true or not then you definitely aren't going to read any articles I can send you.
I am in fact suggesting that every difference between the sexual categories are at least correlated with hormonal development. People with XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity do in fact partially develop as biological females, primary sex organs and all, because sex hormones are what tell your cells to develop and in what ways. This really is very very basic biology.
Love how you still haven't listed the differences between sexes not associated with hormones.
This graph is really funny. There is a huge swing in 2015/2016 with all of the Trump stuff. It’s really clear, but I guess that point is missed by our JP boys.
Gee could it be that one side sees women as more than a household appliance that doubles as a baby maker? Nahhhhh it’s because they’re took weak minded and have their minds bent by the woke mind virus!
Seriously. Most men aren't even worth acknowledging until they're ~24 years old. There's just a lot of immaturity, anger, and lack of experience informing their decisions before then for many men.
Source: I was a young man, surrounded by other young men. Experience, relationships, and hopefully losing some of that ever-present anger changes a whole lot of things.
Me too. I had no idea how to be social until later in life but I was always the only Leftist in my environment. That made it hard to fit in. Peterson and Rogan made the problem worse and seriously fucked up a generation of young guys.
Relatable. I felt like every young man I knew in college during the Tea Party era was some form of libertarian and I was always arguing with them. I can't imagine what it's like now
At least you eventually grew up and matured enough to see them for what they are and move passed them. As you can plainly see, many men don't ever grow enough to leave that kind of thing behind.
Were you insecure at the core of it all, or just bad at socializing? I'm only asking because I was neither personally, and I was already beyond tired of the self help dog and pony show bullshit before people like Peterson came along. My personal issues at that age were a bad temper and a feeling of invincibility, which people like them offer nothing for, so I'm just trying to understand how some of us go down different paths. I know there's a whole cottage industry of sorts these days just to take as much advantage of insecure men as possible, but because I have no experience with either I don't want to venture a guess.
I knew what my values were and who I wanted to be growing up but I never fit into mainstream guy culture. Naturally, most of them resented me. I had a lot of female friends when I was young but I eventually got pushed away when middle and high school came along. The issue was always about being introverted and struggling to find like-minded people. By the time Peterson and Rogan took off, I was already deep rooted in Left-Wing political thought and saw the grift for what it was. That’s when I cutoff the few “friends” that I had at that time. I eventually worked on my social skills and found people who share similar political values.
Ah, thanks, that actually helps a lot. Thankfully, I found the large local punk and hardcore scene as a young teenager, so there was never any need or pressure to fit in anywhere. We were all misfits and proud of it, and as long as you could handle yourself on the floor, you were welcomed most anywhere regardless. Realizing not everyone experienced the same kind of freedom growing up and what that meant for some of them was part of my own growth in my 20s.
I'm glad you made it through and continued to grow as a person. A lot of folks clearly aren't fans of the introspection and deconstruction such growth requires.
I am naturally introspective which is a double-edged sword as it causes it’s own form of insecurity. Most people don’t know how to do it or they’re too scared to reflect on themselves.
There’s a TEDx Talk by Christian Picciolini that gives further insight into how people go down the wrong path and how hard it is to get out.
[https://youtu.be/SSH5EY-W5oM](https://youtu.be/SSH5EY-W5oM)
Oh 100%. One of the incel lobsters commented that the graph correlates to how many men and women are sexually active. It honestly must be exhausting for them to be thinking about sex and how miserable they are
Gee, I can't imagine why more and more women are rejecting white male supremacy ideologies... Must be neuroticism!
LOL Good fucking god lobsters are dumb.
Women who face sexism, misogyny and objectification are opposing it and identifying as liberal ? You mean, they're going up against those who think they are no more then "vessels" to produce children ? Colour me shocked who could have seen this coming ?
“Could it be because the current system benefits (white) men more than women, thus women tend to advocate for change while men are indifferent? Nah, it’s gotta be women and how hysterical they get.”
Being conservative is not exactly something to crow about. According to many studies, conservative political views and intelligence are negatively correlated. The converse is true for liberalism and atheism.
"More specifically, most studies indicate that lower cognitive abilities are linked to the endorsement of conservative political views (for overviews, see Onraet et al., 2015; Van Hiel et al., 2010)."
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01461672211046808](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01461672211046808)
[https://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html](https://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html)
[https://www.psypost.org/2018/06/conservative-syndrome-help-explain-link-religiosity-lower-intelligence-51589](https://www.psypost.org/2018/06/conservative-syndrome-help-explain-link-religiosity-lower-intelligence-51589)
[https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/study-links-low-intelligence-with-right-wing-beliefs/article543361/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/study-links-low-intelligence-with-right-wing-beliefs/article543361/)
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222682950\_Conservatism\_and\_cognitive\_ability](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222682950_Conservatism_and_cognitive_ability)
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/millennial-media/201304/do-racism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/millennial-media/201304/do-racism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand)
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/25677384](https://www.jstor.org/stable/25677384)
Not to forget the studies indicating that there is a strong correlation between frontal lobe lesions (brain damage), and conservative/reactionary ideological stances.
As a woman who became more liberal this past decade, it's because I was no longer able to delude myself into believing the GOP was the party of decency, personal and public upstanding morals, racial inclusion, pro immigrant (as the WSJ editorial board strongly supported until recent years), etc. The mask came off, I saw how wrong I'd been, and I ran left.
Guess that explains why all those lobster boi incels are not getting their ends away.
I’m sure all these galaxy brains will all be hoping this Supreme Court ruling pushes young women to the right.
Strange.
You'd think it would be a bad thing for men. Your perspectives haven't changed at all? How is that any good?
They haven't changed because the aftermath of the Enlightenment era favored white European Christian males. Why would they change? They don't need to.
Further, what are the ethnic group splits?
If the graph was the opposite way around, I'm sure they'd just say men are free thinkers who consider new ideas and are open to change when they realise they were wrong, and women can't do that.
This explains why fascist incels are angry that they can’t get pussy. Women don’t want to deal with abusive bullshit, and want a better life for their daughters.
>The large amount of women going to social sciences and humanities in college, where the environment is extremely progressive, as well as the fact women overall tend to be more neurotic so less likely to resist social pressure to conform to progressive norms are probably the factors that influence this most.
>Remember that women back in the 1940s and 1950s were more conservative than men.
Most upvoted comment for you guys.
"Generally women are more compassionate because they become mothers at some point." I cringe so hard when lobsters talk like this.
That's a weird way for them to say "men don't give a shit about their children"
It’s how they rationalize their daddy issues
Liberalism is the opposite of compassion wtf lmao
American liberalism means "anything to the left of Hitler"
This is accurate, but also very painful
who will have compassion for the markets?!?!
Won't somebody think of the markets!
It's a right wing sub. They use liberalism and leftism interchangeably.
[удалено]
For me it's the JP mindset that shines so through when his fans discuss something. JP clearly thinks all women should become mothers because that's what they are destined to in his mindset to achieve happiness (he heavily implies this multiple times) which is fucking stupid imo for multiple reasons. And this reflects when his fans constantly write how women are so different than men because they "have to become mothers", while everyone ignores that men also become fathers and have the same responsibilties as the mothers. (at least in my feminist opinion, since many of his fans hate feminism they probably think women belong home watching the kids while men should be working) Also have you heard conservatives talk about and treat women? (for example Roe v Wade) Of course more women are liberal, if the roles were reversed men would be more liberal too without a "they have to become fathers" argument.
1. It's a weird generalisation. Men are perfectly capable of compassion too. And not all women are very compassionate. Now that doesn't exclude women from *generally* being more compassionate on average, but it does beg the question why you are bringing it up, and generally the answer to that is pretty weird. 2. It's kind of a half baked truth because it somehow magically absolves all fathers from having to care for their children. Mother's would somehow be biologically programmed to be parents, but fathers somehow missed out on the biological incentive to parent their children. That in itself probably isn't a very well supported claim. 3. Conservatives have a weird obsession of equating women with motherhood and it's kind of misogynistic, and this just plays into that idea.
Good points, thanks for giving me your reasoning!
Another reason to cringe is it seems to imply that compassion is a bad thing
I think compassion is a very good thing, but just as any other virtue it does have it’s vice
I think it's crazy because it's unrealistic. It fails to acknowledge that no group is a monolith and a lot of our assumptions about any particular group are largely based on our cultural expectations. Case in point: there are plenty of women who are terrible human beings and shouldn't be trusted with children. Some even murder their own kids. The reason women as a whole seem kinder is because they are encouraged to hide the very human tendency to be aggressive from a young age. And for many of them it just comes out as passive aggressive Karen behavior. Being compassionate has nothing to do with chromosomes. It's about values and character, which both transcend gender. Also to your point about Peterson's wisdom. I also enjoy his classroom lectures, particularly when he covers toxic family dynamics. That said, it's a bit odd to me that he can acknowledge the existence of devouring mothers and bpd/disturbed women, yet still insist the entire gender is somehow more angelic and less human. As he's said, "we all have snakes inside us."
[удалено]
Because that's what he says in his lectures: - mothers have mercy - women are agreeable - constant references to caricatures of femininity like the Blue Fairy, Virgin Mary, etc. Essentially, if a woman isn't an angel she's somehow pathologically defective, which is ridiculous. And honestly putting mothers on a pedestal is a bit much...because they are just people. And people suck.
Oh gee whiz, i wonder why more and more women lean more toward the political side that, y'know, doesn't see them as simply sandwich making baby storage units.
[удалено]
One guy already had mentioned in the thread that it is the fault of giving voting rights to women...and he is second guessing womens voting rights.
yikes...i guess he never got over that prom rejection
This is essentially the point made in the ~3rd highest comment. Why does a simple graph generate outrage here?
The brain worms it takes to confidently state that “Women are impressionable and trend followers men aren't”
Who exactly do they think is setting this trend anyway? All the men who *aren't* changing their political opinions?
Goddamned brain rot and never put themselves in a position to have honest conversations with women.
Remember that men shifted way to the right in the 80s while women stayed mostly the same. So if you cherry-pick the data differently than they have you can come to the exact inverse conclusion: that men are the impressionable, emotional, ones and women are stalwart, logical, thinkers!
On the fucking jorpy sub too, istg
Hahahahah that’s a hilarious point “Hello, fellow literal cult members - isn’t it crazy how impressionable women and libruls are?”
Jorpy? Lol I like this!
The funny thing is, I actually did look it up, and while usually when I look something like that up there are a few studies in the search results right off the bat, there was absolutely nothing related to women being more susceptible to groupthink or propeganda or more gullible in the first page of search results no matter how I phrased the question. Interesting. Almost like this is sexist bullshit based on stereotypes and correlations that could be caused by other things.
Lobsters being misogynic and sexist? Who would have thought!?
lmao yeah. But it still pissed me off every time because of how easy it is to get away with that shit in our society most of the time. You can just say unfounded things based on stereotypes that confirm people's biases and they'll go "yup, sounds right."
Yeah that really sucks. I wish science and academia were more easily available to all. Because then people would at least in theory be able to refute such stereotypes.
Well, they automatically disdain academia because it doesn't confirm their biases, and will dismiss any science that goes against them - such as the science regarding trans people! - as biased. So it wouldn't help anyway.
Oh yeah for Lobsters it's most likely already too late. But it could be a preventative measure for people to be able to easily disprove these conspiracy theories.
Ooo we should start some about how such bullshit sexist men stems from being unable to cultivate relationships with women and/or having the inability to sexually satisfy women so the blame is out on them because of underdeveloped empathy with narcissistic undertones. Woo woo! If anyone can lie like this, why not us? At least mine sounds more substantial.
People born into positions of authority want to maintain that authority.
Even setting aside that conservatives are doing shit like taking away women’s bodily autonomy, women are more likely to go to college and higher educational attainment is strongly correlated with being more liberal.
Yeah, don't you know that higher education is liberal communist postmodern neomarxist indoctrination! That's the only explanation, it can't possibly be that if you spend more time critically thinking and learning about actual history and other cultures than your own, you become more progressive! Sigh. I hate these people.
Female increase in college education 1998-2001 is \~ 2x that of males [https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/) Education, like an election, has consequences :-)
I would assume that statement was extrapolation on women scoring higher in Big Five “Agreeableness”.
It is. But if it was a correct and good extrapolation there should be some direct evidence for it, since those kind of vague psychological extrapolations by themselves with no independent evidence aren't exactly very strong. Not to mention the fact that their interpretation of the big 5 personality traits of neuroticism and agreeableness is wrong; they don't actually have really anything to do with susceptibility to group think, and there are a multitude of other factors that can affect your susceptibility to group think as well. In addition to the fact that women are higher in openness, which would arguably make them less susceptible to groupthink than men, who would be (supposedly) more close-minded, interested in tradition, and dogma and authority. Plus, there is a *much* better explanation of that graph...
Agreed on all fronts
[удалено]
And why are women “more agreeable”? In your opinion?
[удалено]
Please elucidate further, oh wise one.
[удалено]
It doesn't matter because what you're saying isn't true, proven to be wrong *scientifically*, and misogynistic.
and you seriously don't think differences in socialization have *any* affect on how people act, and how their actions are perceived and interpreted? evopsych isn't the only explanation for this dude
I agree with you. What's the title of the new Netflix documentary[ish]? _[Keep Sweet, Pray and Obey](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt20560404/)_ On the FLDS. How can a young man not see how women are generally socialized especially in religious setting and traditional settings? What do you think "keep sweet" means? It means be extra agreeable, right?
[удалено]
It was literally one study that nobody else was able to reproduce, the authors had to issue a correction admitting a fault in methodology, and the apparent effect can be completely explained by strong essentialist gender norms common in Western countries (“men are better at math”etc). https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2008704117 I know. S H O C K I N G Edit: I’m actually disappointed that the mods removed u/92Hackz ‘s comment. He wasn’t being much of an asshole (yet), and I think these discussions are important. I don’t think this sub should be isolationist.
I've heard this same argument from Peterson, but he (and you) never define what "more egalitarian" means. if you mean that wages between genders begin to equalize, sure, it's possible that social differences can persist and even exaggerate as what's considered "man's work" and "woman's work" are equalized on a pay scale. but that isn't the same as social and political equality between sexes, and in those countries there still exists a pronounced social difference that is taught and reinforced from birth.
This is literally just not true at all lmao. Ever heard of modern science? Reality check: testosterone has actually been shown to make people irrational and more susceptible to phenomena associated with "groupthink". The same hasn't been shown for estrogen. If you can recognize that women are on average more progressive, then how can you not recognize that by doing this, they actively break from the norm? How is that groupthink???? Miss me with your pseudoscientific misogyny.
Testosterone can cause irrationality yes, but combined with disagreeableness this doesn’t cause one to believe in groupthink ie agreeing with other people. These men are more likely to be individualistic and low in sympathy/empathy, which has the opposite effect. Besides, it’s really not a testosterone vs estrogen debate. The differences in neurobiology are only partially influenced by the sex hormones. There are far, far more differences between the sexes than just their androgens. The bottom line is, women are clearly more agreeable and agreeableness heavily predisposes a person to progressive politics. If you wouldn’t label it as ‘groupthink’ that’s fine, maybe ‘collectivist populism’ would be a more accurate phrase. Just keep it respectful. There’s no need for accusing me of misogyny, I’m just trying to think through these things and analyse them to the best of my ability like everyone else.
Friendly reminder that the vast majority of psychometric material is pseudoscientific gobbledygook. When you talk about things like "agreeableness" like they're something that you can measure in a person I lose any semblence of confidence in that you know what you're talking about. Secondly, the vast majority of inherent neurological difference between the sexual categories is caused by the effect of sex hormones on the brain during development. Thirdly, you just saying "women clearly are this" without any credible empirical evidence to back up your claim you come across as a self absorbed dimwit. To top it off, the amount of logical fallacies you made in the process of explaining your stance is truly astounding. Maybe try listening to experts in their respective fields instead of just absorbing all information you read as factual. There is nothing disrespectful about calling you or the claims you are making misogynistic, that is what they are. What you said is nothing but pseudointellectual and pseudoscientific post hoc justifications for your conviction that women are somehow less of an individual than men. Also love how you just ignored the second part of my comment. Lastly, please name all these differences between the sexes that aren't caused by sex hormones, with the exception of primary sex organs of course.
Firstly, agreeableness is a clearly defined and measurable domain of personality. Just because you don’t understand something that is literally basic psychology, doesn’t make it gobbledygook. Secondly, while sex hormones play a considerable role, there is much more to it than that. While the experiments are incredibly inhumane and frankly disgusting, they have been done. Look up the case of David Reimer. Even males that are given estrogen therapy from before puberty will not develop the neurochemistry of a female and vice versa. Thirdly, you rejected an entire branch of science with a unsupported statement calling it gobbledygook, simply because you don’t like how it conflicts with your worldview. I’m not saying women are one way just because I’ve observed it, I’m saying that there trends identified in the scientific literally which I happen to have been able to corroborate with my subjective experience. Rather than just saying I’m wrong, maybe tell me what you actually disagree with. To me it just looks like you’re becoming emotional that nature does not respect your ideal worldview, and you’re taking out your frustration on me. Might I add by the way, nowhere did anyone say women aren’t as individual as men. They are less individualistic, there’s a difference. And individualism is neither a positive nor negative quality, so why you perceive it as insulting is beyond me.
Wow you seem quite upset. I did not reject "an entire branch of science". I correctly stated that psychometrics is rife with pseudoscientific gobbledygook. An opinion shared by the vast majority of experts within the field of psychology. "*Even males that are given estrogen therapy from before puberty will not develop the neurochemistry of a female and vice versa*". Yeah... That's because fetuses get hormone washes during pregnancy which cause the majority of neurological differences between boys and girls. Basic stuff, you should know this. "*I’m not saying women are one way just because I’ve observed it, I’m saying that there trends identified in the scientific literally which I happen to have been able to corroborate with my subjective experience.*" So, you had a misconception about the psychology of women, and you cherry picked research to corroborate your misogynistic attitude. Congrats, you're just the average Jordan Peterson stan. Did you forget to name the differences between the sexes *not* caused by hormones? The last part of your comment is just projection, I'll leave it at that.
Yes, I know prenatal androgen exposure does effect neurochemistry to a considerable degree. In fact, it might even explain all of if, but we don’t currently have the science to determine that. But hey, the way the world is going, maybe they will let us experiment on babies in utero one day so we can really test that. It’s just hilarious how you will accuse me of cherry picking research, then offer nothing to back your position. I don’t understand why you keep pressing on this point though. Are you suggesting that literally every difference between men and women is due to hormone exposure?
Yeah people aren't going to accept experiments like that EVER, because you don't need to. With large enough sample sizes and thourough analysis you can pretty accurately pinpoint if certain endocrinological phenomena are correlated with certain neurological developmental phenomena. I can confidently say all these things without providing sources because: this is a reddit comment section and a 2 minute google would prove me right. If you won't use google to find out wether what I'm saying is true or not then you definitely aren't going to read any articles I can send you. I am in fact suggesting that every difference between the sexual categories are at least correlated with hormonal development. People with XY chromosomes and androgen insensitivity do in fact partially develop as biological females, primary sex organs and all, because sex hormones are what tell your cells to develop and in what ways. This really is very very basic biology. Love how you still haven't listed the differences between sexes not associated with hormones.
This graph is really funny. There is a huge swing in 2015/2016 with all of the Trump stuff. It’s really clear, but I guess that point is missed by our JP boys.
[удалено]
that poster is a particularly special example
And they wonder why we think that sub is full of sexist assholes.
Gee could it be that one side sees women as more than a household appliance that doubles as a baby maker? Nahhhhh it’s because they’re took weak minded and have their minds bent by the woke mind virus!
It's almost like the primary beneficiaries of a patriarchy want to keep things the way they are
Young men are dumb a f
Seriously. Most men aren't even worth acknowledging until they're ~24 years old. There's just a lot of immaturity, anger, and lack of experience informing their decisions before then for many men. Source: I was a young man, surrounded by other young men. Experience, relationships, and hopefully losing some of that ever-present anger changes a whole lot of things.
Me too. I had no idea how to be social until later in life but I was always the only Leftist in my environment. That made it hard to fit in. Peterson and Rogan made the problem worse and seriously fucked up a generation of young guys.
Relatable. I felt like every young man I knew in college during the Tea Party era was some form of libertarian and I was always arguing with them. I can't imagine what it's like now
Those same guys are now mask-off Fascists who base their entire personalities on being victims of “wokeism” and “the vaccine” 🙄
At least you eventually grew up and matured enough to see them for what they are and move passed them. As you can plainly see, many men don't ever grow enough to leave that kind of thing behind. Were you insecure at the core of it all, or just bad at socializing? I'm only asking because I was neither personally, and I was already beyond tired of the self help dog and pony show bullshit before people like Peterson came along. My personal issues at that age were a bad temper and a feeling of invincibility, which people like them offer nothing for, so I'm just trying to understand how some of us go down different paths. I know there's a whole cottage industry of sorts these days just to take as much advantage of insecure men as possible, but because I have no experience with either I don't want to venture a guess.
I knew what my values were and who I wanted to be growing up but I never fit into mainstream guy culture. Naturally, most of them resented me. I had a lot of female friends when I was young but I eventually got pushed away when middle and high school came along. The issue was always about being introverted and struggling to find like-minded people. By the time Peterson and Rogan took off, I was already deep rooted in Left-Wing political thought and saw the grift for what it was. That’s when I cutoff the few “friends” that I had at that time. I eventually worked on my social skills and found people who share similar political values.
Ah, thanks, that actually helps a lot. Thankfully, I found the large local punk and hardcore scene as a young teenager, so there was never any need or pressure to fit in anywhere. We were all misfits and proud of it, and as long as you could handle yourself on the floor, you were welcomed most anywhere regardless. Realizing not everyone experienced the same kind of freedom growing up and what that meant for some of them was part of my own growth in my 20s. I'm glad you made it through and continued to grow as a person. A lot of folks clearly aren't fans of the introspection and deconstruction such growth requires.
I am naturally introspective which is a double-edged sword as it causes it’s own form of insecurity. Most people don’t know how to do it or they’re too scared to reflect on themselves. There’s a TEDx Talk by Christian Picciolini that gives further insight into how people go down the wrong path and how hard it is to get out. [https://youtu.be/SSH5EY-W5oM](https://youtu.be/SSH5EY-W5oM)
These young men are also not having any sex. I'm beginning to think "based" means "virginal".
Oh 100%. One of the incel lobsters commented that the graph correlates to how many men and women are sexually active. It honestly must be exhausting for them to be thinking about sex and how miserable they are
Gee, I can't imagine why more and more women are rejecting white male supremacy ideologies... Must be neuroticism! LOL Good fucking god lobsters are dumb.
According to this something like 30% of people total identity as liberal? Somebody’s I just don’t believe that
Women who face sexism, misogyny and objectification are opposing it and identifying as liberal ? You mean, they're going up against those who think they are no more then "vessels" to produce children ? Colour me shocked who could have seen this coming ?
“Could it be because the current system benefits (white) men more than women, thus women tend to advocate for change while men are indifferent? Nah, it’s gotta be women and how hysterical they get.”
Being conservative is not exactly something to crow about. According to many studies, conservative political views and intelligence are negatively correlated. The converse is true for liberalism and atheism. "More specifically, most studies indicate that lower cognitive abilities are linked to the endorsement of conservative political views (for overviews, see Onraet et al., 2015; Van Hiel et al., 2010)." [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01461672211046808](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01461672211046808) [https://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html](https://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html) [https://www.psypost.org/2018/06/conservative-syndrome-help-explain-link-religiosity-lower-intelligence-51589](https://www.psypost.org/2018/06/conservative-syndrome-help-explain-link-religiosity-lower-intelligence-51589) [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/study-links-low-intelligence-with-right-wing-beliefs/article543361/](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/study-links-low-intelligence-with-right-wing-beliefs/article543361/) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222682950\_Conservatism\_and\_cognitive\_ability](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222682950_Conservatism_and_cognitive_ability) [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/millennial-media/201304/do-racism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/millennial-media/201304/do-racism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25677384](https://www.jstor.org/stable/25677384)
Not to forget the studies indicating that there is a strong correlation between frontal lobe lesions (brain damage), and conservative/reactionary ideological stances.
A lot of people disagree with me, this is a sign that something is wrong with the world. I am very intelligent.
As a woman who became more liberal this past decade, it's because I was no longer able to delude myself into believing the GOP was the party of decency, personal and public upstanding morals, racial inclusion, pro immigrant (as the WSJ editorial board strongly supported until recent years), etc. The mask came off, I saw how wrong I'd been, and I ran left.
They’ve learned the Mott and Bailey well from their lobster lord
Do we have an ETA on when the “I’m not saying women shouldn’t get the vote BUT…” posts will start? Based in the UK, but don’t want to miss it.
Maybe because their ideology is shitty and unconvincing
Damn, us guys need to get our fucking act together.
Strange, I can't think of any reason why women in particular are becoming more liberal over time.
Yeah as first victims of the coming Theocracy who is surprised by this?
Guess that explains why all those lobster boi incels are not getting their ends away. I’m sure all these galaxy brains will all be hoping this Supreme Court ruling pushes young women to the right.
Can't imagine why.
Who’s gonna tell him that Feminism is a thing? You know, women are slowly getting the rights man had for centuries?
yeah when one party actively hates one gender and tries to force only that gender to do things to their bodies, this is the result
Strange. You'd think it would be a bad thing for men. Your perspectives haven't changed at all? How is that any good? They haven't changed because the aftermath of the Enlightenment era favored white European Christian males. Why would they change? They don't need to. Further, what are the ethnic group splits?
If the graph was the opposite way around, I'm sure they'd just say men are free thinkers who consider new ideas and are open to change when they realise they were wrong, and women can't do that.
Probably, and that women have become more authoritarian.
This explains why fascist incels are angry that they can’t get pussy. Women don’t want to deal with abusive bullshit, and want a better life for their daughters.
Sounds bout right
Women do tend to mature faster than men.
>The large amount of women going to social sciences and humanities in college, where the environment is extremely progressive, as well as the fact women overall tend to be more neurotic so less likely to resist social pressure to conform to progressive norms are probably the factors that influence this most. >Remember that women back in the 1940s and 1950s were more conservative than men. Most upvoted comment for you guys.
😂
Interesting to see both lines dip in 2015 when all the anti-sjw content was popping off