Review: Is there anything good about men? (Roy F. Baumeister)

www.goodreads.com/book/show/8765372-is-there-anything-good-about-men

gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=B21C5698CE12510CDEDBE940259BDF6F

If you read the original essay, there is not much to recommend about the book. It taught me very little, has no data tables, no plots, no figures. Numbers are only mentioned in the text and sources are only given in the back of the book. There were a few interesting works mentioned, but basically the book is just a longer and more repetitive version of the essay.

Hard to say whether to give this 2 or 3 stars. Generally the author has truth on his side. Perhaps 3 then.

Bouchard’s new review paper on Genes, Evolution, Intelligence is excellent!

Seriously. Read it.

Behavior Genetics (Impact Factor: 2.61). 03/2014; DOI: 10.1007/s10519-014-9646-x

Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT I argue that the g factor meets the fundamental criteria of a scientific construct more fully than any other conception of intelligence. I briefly discuss the evidence regarding the relationship of brain size to intelligence. A review of a large body of evidence demonstrates that there is a g factor in a wide range of species and that, in the species studied, it relates to brain size and is heritable. These findings suggest that many species have evolved a general-purpose mechanism (a general biological intelligence) for dealing with the environments in which they evolved. In spite of numerous studies with considerable statistical power, we know of very few genes that influence g and the effects are very small. Nevertheless, g appears to be highly polygenic. Given the complexity of the human brain, it is not surprising that that one of its primary faculties-intelligence-is best explained by the near infinitesimal model of quantitative genetics.

Genes, Evolution and Intelligence

A troublesome inheritance (Nicholas Wade)

This book is very popsci and can be read in 1 day for any reasonably fast reader. It doesnt contain much new information to anyone who has read a few books on the topic. As can be seen below, it has a lot of nonsense/errors since clearly the author is not used to this area of science. It is not recommended except as a light introduction to people with political problems with these facts.

gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=7a48b9a42d89294ca1ade9f76e26a63c

www.goodreads.com/book/show/18667960-a-troublesome-inheritance?from_search=true

 

But  a  drawback  o f  the  system  is  its  occasional  drift  toward
extreme  conservatism.  Researchers  get  attached  to  the  view  of their
field  they  grew  up  with  and,  as  they  grow  older,  they  may  gain  the
influence  to thwart change.  For  50  years  after it was  first proposed,
leading geophysicists  strenuously resisted the idea that the continents
have  drifted  across  the  face  of  the  globe.  “Knowledge  advances,
funeral  by funeral,”  the economist Paul  Samuelson  once  observed.

 

Wrong quote origin. en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck

>A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

 

Academics, who are obsessed with intelligence, fear the discovery
of  a  gene  that  will  prove  one  major  race  is  more  intelligent  than
another.  But  that  is  unlikely  to  happen  anytime  soon.  Although
intelligence has a genetic basis, no genetic variants that enhance intel­
ligence  have  yet  been  found.  The  reason,  almost  certainly,  is  that
there  are  a  great  many  such  genes,  each  of  which  has  too  small  an
effect  to  be  detectable  with  present  methods.8  If  researchers  should
one  day  find  a  gene  that  enhances  intelligence  in  East  Asians,  say,
they can  hardly argue on that  basis that East Asians are more  intelli­
gent than other races, because hundreds of similar genes remain to be
discovered  in  Europeans  and  Africans.
Even  if  all  the  intelligence-enhancing  variants  in  each  race  had
been identified, no one would try to compute intelligence on the basis
of genetic  information:  it would  be  far easier  just to  apply  an  intelli­
gence test.  But IQ  tests already  exist, for what  they may  be  worth.

 

We have found a number of SNPs already. And we have already begun counting them in racial groups. See e.g.: openpsych.net/OBG/2014/05/opposite-selection-pressures-on-stature-and-intelligence-across-human-populations/

 

 

It s social behavior that is of relevance for understanding pivotal—
and otherwise imperfectly explained— events in history and econom­
ics.  Although  the  emotional  and  intellectual  differences  between  the
world’s peoples  as  individuals are slight enough,  even a  small  shift in
social  behavior  can  generate  a  very  different  kind  of society.  Tribal
societies, for instance, are organized on the basis of kinship and differ
from  modern  states  chiefly  in  that  people’s  radius  of trust  does  not
extend too far beyond the family and tribe.  But in this small variation
is  rooted  the  vast  difference  in  political  and  economic  structures
between tribal and modern societies. Variations in another genetically
based behavior, the readiness to punish those who violate social rules,
may explain why  some societies  are  more conformist than others.

 

See: www.goodreads.com/book/show/3026168-the-expanding-circle

 

 

The  lure  of  Galton’s  eugenics  was  his  belief  that  society  would
be  better  off  if  the  intellectually  eminent  could  be  encouraged  to
have  more  children.  W hat  scholar  could  disagree  with  that?  More
of  a  good  thing  must  surely  be  better.  In  fact  it  is  far  from  certain
that  this  would  be  a  desirable  outcome.  Intellectuals  as  a  class  are
notoriously  prone  to  fine-sounding  theoretical  schemes  that  lead
to  catastrophe,  such  as  Social  Darwinism,  Marxism  or  indeed
eugenics.
By  analogy  with  animal  breeding,  people  could  no  doubt  be
bred,  if it were ethically acceptable, so  as to  enhance  specific desired
traits.  But  it  is  impossible  to  know  what  traits would  benefit  society
as a whole. The eugenics program, however reasonable it might seem,
was  basically incoherent.

 

Obviously wrong.

 

 

The  principal  organizer  of  the  new  eugenics  movement  was
Charles  Davenport.  He  earned  a  doctorate  in  biology  from  Harvard
and  taught  zoology  at  Harvard,  the  University  of  Chicago,  and  the
Brooklyn  Institute  of  Arts  and  Sciences  Biological  Laboratory  at
Cold  Spring  Harbor  on  Long  Island.  Davenport’s  views  on  eugenics
were  motivated  by  disdain  for  races  other  than  his  own:  “Can  we
build a  wall high  enough around this country so as to keep  out these
cheaper  races,  or will  it  be  a  feeble  dam  .  .  .  leaving it to  our  descen­
dants to abandon  the country to the  blacks,  browns  and  yellows and
seek  an  asylum in New  Zealand?”  he wrote.9

 

Well, about that… In this century europeans will be <50% in the US. I wonder if the sociologists will then stop talking about minority, as if that somehow makes a difference.

 

 

One  of  the  most  dramatic  experiments  on  the  genetic  control  of
aggression was performed by the Soviet scientist Dmitriy Belyaev. From
the same population of Siberian gray rats he developed two strains, one
highly sociable  and  the  other  brimming with  aggression.  For  the tame
rats, the parents of each generation were chosen simply by the criterion
of how well they tolerated  human presence.  For the  ferocious  rats, the
criterion  was  how adversely they reacted  to people.  After many gener­
ations of breeding,  the  first strain was  now so tame that when visitors
entered  the  room  where  the  rats  were  caged,  the  animals  would  press
their  snouts  through  the  bars to  be  petted.  The  other  strain  could  not
have  been  more  different.  The  rats  would  hurl  themselves  screaming
toward  the  intruder,  thudding  ferociously  against  the  bars  of  their
cage.12

 

Didnt know this one. The ref is:

N icholas  Wade,  “N ice  R a ts,  N asty  R a ts:  Maybe  I t ’s  All  in  the  G en es,”
N ew  York  Tim es, Ju ly  2 5 ,  2 0 0 6 ,  www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/health/
25 ra ts.h tm l?p a g ew a n ted = a ll& _ r=0  (accessed  Sept.  2 5 ,  2 0 1 3 )

 

 

Rodents and humans use many of the same genes and  brain regions
to control  aggression.  Experiments with  mice  have  shown that a  large
number of genes are involved in the trait, and the same is certainly true
of  people.  Comparisons  of  identical  twins  raised  together  and  sepa­
rately  show  that  aggression  is  heritable.  Genes  account  for  between
3 7%  and 72%  of the heritability, the variation  of the trait in a  popula­
tion, according to various studies.  But very few of the genes that under­
lie  aggression  have  yet  been  identified,  in  part  because  when  many
genes control  a  behavior,  each  has  so  small  an  effect  that  it  is  hard  to
detect.  Most  research  has  focused  on  genes  that  promote  aggression
rather than those at the other end of the  behavioral  spectrum.

 

This sentence is nonsensical.

 

 

Standing  in  sharp  contrast  to  the  economists’  working  assumption
that  people  the  world  over  are  interchangeable  units  is  the  idea  that
national  disparities  in  wealth  arise  from  differences  in  intelligence.
The possibility should  not be  dismissed  out of hand:  where  individu­
als are concerned,  IQ  scores do correlate,  on average,  with economic
success, so  it is not unreasonable to inquire if the same  might  be true
of countries.

 

Marked sentence is nonsensical.

 

 

Turning to economic indicators, they find that national  IQ scores
have an extremely high correlation  (83%)  with economic growth  per
capita  and  also  associate  strongly  with  the  rate  of economic  growth
between  1950  and  1 9 9 0  (64%  correlation).44

 

More conceptual confusion.

 

 

And  indeed  with  Lynn  and  Vanhanen’s correlations,  it  is  hard to
know  which  way  the  arrow  of  causality  may  be  pointing,  whether
higher  IQ  makes  a  nation  wealthier  or  whether  a  wealthier  nation
enables  its  citizens  to  do  better  on  IQ  tests.  The  writer  Roy  Unz  has
pointed out from  Lynn and Vanhanen’s own data examples  in  which
IQ  scores  increase  10  or more points  in  a generation  when  a  popula­
tion  becomes  richer,  showing  clearly  that  wealth  can  raise  IQ
scores  significantly.  East  German  children  averaged  90  in  1 9 6 7  but
99  in  1984.  In  West  Germany,  which  has  essentially the  same  popu­
lation,  averages  range  from  99  to  107.  This  17  point  range  in  the
German  population,  from  90  to  107,  was  evidently  caused  by  the
alleviation  of poverty,  not genetics.

 

Ron Unz, the cherry picker. conservativetimes.org/?p=11790

 

 

East  Asia  is  a  vast counterexample to the  Lynn/Vanhanen  thesis.
The  populations  of China, Japan  and Korea  have consistently  higher
IQs  than  those  of Europe  and  the  United  States,  but  their  societies,
despite  their  many  virtues,  are  not  obviously  more  successful  than
those of Europe and  its outposts. Intelligence can’t hurt, but it doesn’t
seem  a  clear  arbiter  of  a  population’s  economic  success.  W hat  is  it
then  that determines  the  wealth  or poverty of nations?

 

No. But it does disprove the claim that IQs are just GDPs. The oil states have low IQs and had that both before and after they got rich on oil, and will have in the future when they run out of oil again. Money cannot buy u intelligence (yet).

 

 

From  about  9 0 0  a d   to  1700  a d ,  Ashkenazim  were  concentrated
in  a  few  professions,  notably  moneylending  and  later  ta x  farming
(give  the prince  his  money  up  front,  then  extract the  taxes  due  from
his  subjects).  Because  of  the  strong  heritability  of  intelligence,  the
Utah team calculates that 20 generations, a mere 5 0 0 years, would be
sufficient for Ashkenazim to have developed an  extra  16 points of IQ
above that of Europeans. The Utah team assumes that the heritability
of  intelligence  is  0 .8 ,  meaning  that  8 0 %  of the  variance,  the  spread
between high and low values in a population, is due to genetics. If the
parents of each generation have an  IQ of just  1  point above the mean,
then  average  IQ  increases  by  0 .8 %  per  generation.  If  the  average
human  generation  time  in  the  Middle Ages was  2 5  years,  then  in  20
human  generations,  or  5 0 0  years,  Ashkenazi  IQ  would  increase  by
2 0  x  0.8  =  16  IQ  points.

 

More conceptual confusion. One cannot use % on IQs becus IQs are not ratio scale and hence division makes no sense. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levels_of_measurement#Comparison

Admixture study for neanderthal ancestry and psychological traits

We have a neanderthal genome.

It is possible to estimate an individuals neanderthal ancestry. 23andme does this.

It is possible to use the admixture study design to see what the effects of some kind of ancestry origin is.

What are we waiting for? They can use the SNP datasets they have used GWA studies for psychological traits.

Girlfriend [12th may 2014]: I bet theres an autism/neanderthal link

Any takers?

The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People (David P. Barash, Judith Eve Lipton)

This book is fairly short and is mostly about sexual selection and sexual antagonism. While other EP lit. uses animal examples, this book is literally full of them. Lots of interesting comparisons with all kinds of birds, for instance. On the continuum of biology — psychology of EP lit., this one is definitely closer to biology.

 

One annoying thing about it is that it doesnt use citations in the text. The ref list has the sources, but there are no numbers or the like in the text. This makes looking up references annoying.

 

www.goodreads.com/book/show/764783.The_Myth_of_Monogamy

gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=A8CB31B2CAC0C427C1E0D4DC89AAD12F&open=0

 

 

Certain insects have had an important historical role in helping us appre­

ciate the rarity of monogamy. Thus, some time ago, environmentalists had

great hope for a novel technique that promised to eradicate insect pests. The

idea was to release large numbers of sterilized males, which would mate

with females, who would therefore fail to reproduce. Eventually, no more

pests … and no more pesticides, to .boot. But the success of this procedure

n,ever extended beyond one species, the screw-worm fly.

 

This is what happened. During the 1930s, E. F. Knipling, a forward­

looking entomologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, may have

sensed that “natural” (that is, noninsecticidal) means of controlling

unwanted insects would be superior to the widespread use of poisons. In any

event, he began exploring a promising technique: Introduce sterilized male .

screw-worms into nature, whereupon they would mate with wild female

screw-worms, whose offspring would fail to materialize. It worked, becom­

ing for a time one of the great success stories of post-Rachel Carson envi­

ronmentalism. By the 1960s, male screw-worms were being exposed to

radioactive cobalt by the vatful, after which insect eunuchs were airdropped

over a vast region along the Mexican-U.S. border . This technique succeeded

in eliminating the screw-worm scourge. However , such an outcome has

never been replicated. As it turns out, Knipling’s choice of a target species

was fortunate (or scientifically inspired): Female screw-worms–despite

their name-are strictly monogamous. By contrast, we now know that for

nearly all insects, one screw is not enough: Females commonly mate with

more than one male, so even when they are inundated with a blizzard of

sterile males, it only takes a small number of intact ones for reproduction to

go merrily along. And so the “sterile-male technique,” for all its environ­

mental, nonpesticide appeal, has gone nowhere.

 

See more here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique

 

This is a great way for rich countries to help poor countries without using alot of money on developmental aid that doesnt work.

 

 

Sperm competition was actually first documented by none other than

Charles Darwin, although he did not identify it as such. Indeed, Darwin

seems to have carefully refrained from pursuing the matter , perhaps because

the question of females mating with more than one male was more than

Darwin’s social climate could bear . Thus, in The Descent of Man and Selec­

tion in Relation to Sex (1871), Darwin described a female domestic goose

who produced a mixed brood consisting of some goslings fathered -by a

domestic goose who was her social partner as well as others evidently

fathered by a Chinese goose … this second male being not only not her

mate, but also not even of the same species!

 

Humans are not the only species to have ”sex with animals”. :)

 

 

It is said that exceptions prove the rule. When it comes to the connection

among maleness, low parental investment, and sexual eagerness, there

are in fact some interesting apparent exceptions. These are cases of

“reversed sex roles/’ in which females are comparatively aggressive, often

larger, brightly colored, and more sexually demanding if not promiscuous,

while the males are coy, drab, and sexually reticent. Among certain insects,

for example, the males produce not only sperm but also a large mass of

gelatinous, proteinaceous glop, which the female devours after mating; in

doing so, she gains substantial calories, more, in some cases, than she ex­

pends in making eggs. And sure enough, in these speCies (including some

katydids and butterflies), females court the males. This makes sense, since

here it is the males, not the females, who make a large metabolic investment.

And in such cases, males, not females, are likely to say “no.” The key for

our purposes-and apparently for these animals as well-is that male­

female patterns of sexual behavior are reversed precisely when male-female

patterns of parental investment are reversed. (It is not known, incidentally,

what gave rise to such sex-role switching in the first place.)

 

Exceptions prove the rule becus exceptions are exceptions to what exactly? The rule.

 

This frase is however confusingly used now a days. An exception to a supposedly exception free rule does ofc not prove it. It disproves it.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

 

 

The suggestion has been made that multiple mating by females may be

tactic of nonhuman primates as well, designed to deprive other females of

sperm from their sexual partner . After all, even though sperm are cheap,

they are not infinitely replaceable, and even the “studliest” of males may

have difficulty producing a constant and undiminished supply . It is even

possible that something akin to female-female competition for male sex­

ual attention explains an interesting womanly mystery: menstrual syn­

chrony . It is a well-known fact that when women live together-in dor­

mitories, sororities, rooming houses-their menstrual cycles tend to

become synchronized. Young women typically begin the academic year

with their periods randomly distributed throughout the calendar , but by

finals in May or June, nearly everyone in the same domicile is reaching for

tampons on the same days.

 

Minus points for calling things well known that are actually doubtful.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_synchrony#2000s

 

 

IPCs are pretty much evenly divided throughout a woman’s reproduc­

tive cycle, if anything somewhat more frequent during the postovulation

phase, when fertility is substantially reduced. By contrast, Baker and Bel­

lis report that EPCs are actually more frequent when women are most fer­

tile ! According to the two researchers, “at some time in their lives the

majority of males in western societies place their sperm in competition

with sperm from another male and the majority of females contain live

sperm from two or more different males .” They estimate that in Great

Britain 4 to 12 percent of children are conceived by “sperm that has pre­

vailed in competition with sperm from another male. ” This is consistent

with standard estimates of “paternal discrepancy” among human beings

generally: about 10 percent, which, if accurate, is enough to bespeak gen­

uine sperm competition.

 

These 10% estimates are wildly off the mark. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misattributed_paternity#Incidence

 

Gilding, M. (2009). “Paternity Uncertainty and Evolutionary Psychology: How a Seemingly Capricious Occurrence Fails to Follow Laws of Greater Generality”. Sociology 43: 140–691. doi:10.1177/0038038508099102. edit

 

 

 

Prediction: Good dating sites of the future will use genomic data to select partners with matching MHC

Prediction: Good dating sites of the future will use genomic data to select partners with matching MHC. The idea is obvious. Genomic sequencing prices will fall. People will have copies of their data. These can be uploaded to dating sites. Dating sites can extract the info about MHC (and whatever else!) from the data, and match people accordingly. Perhaps people will extract the MHC part of the genome and only upload that, to avoid giving more information than necessary. Altho other info can be used to match as well.

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Histocompatibility_Complex_and_Sexual_Selection#MHC_and_Sexual_Selection

MHC-based sexual selection is known to involve olfactory mechanisms in such vertebrate taxa as fish, mice, humans, primates, birds, and reptiles.[6] At its simplest level, humans have long been acquainted with the sense of olfaction for its use in determining the pleasantness or the unpleasantness of one’s resources, food, etc. At a deeper level, it has been predicted that olfaction serves to personally identify individuals based upon the genes of the MHC.[9]

Other studies have approached mate choice based on odor preference. In one study done by Wedekind et al., women were asked to smell male axillary odors collected on T-shirts worn by different males. Women that were ovulating rated the odors of MHC-dissimilar men as more pleasant than those of the MHC-similar men. Furthermore, odors of MHC-dissimilar men often reminded women of current or former partners, suggesting that odor—specifically odor for MHC-dissimilarity—plays a role in mate choice.[12]

In another study done by Wedekind et al., 121 women and men were asked to rank the pleasantness of the odors of sweaty T-shirts. Upon smelling the shirts, it was found that men and women who were reminded of their own mate or ex-mate had dramatically fewer MHC alleles in common with the wearer than would be expected by chance. If the selection for shirts was not random, and actually selected for MHC-dissimilar alleles, this suggests that MHC genetic composition does influence mate choice. Furthermore, when the degree of similarity between the wearer and the smeller was statistically accounted for, there was no longer a significant influence of MHC on odor preference. The results show that MHC similarity or dissimilarity certainly plays a role in mate choice. Specifically, MHC-disassortative mate choice and less similar MHC combinations are selected for.[13] One interesting aspect of the Wedekind’s experiment was that in contrast to normally cycling women, women taking oral contraceptives preferred odors of MHC-similar men. This would suggest that the pill may interfere with the adaptive preference for dissimilarity.[12][13]

Review: Taking sex differences seriously (Steven E. Rhoads)

bookos.org/s/?q=taking+sex+differences&t=0

This shortish book contains a wealth of information and 100s of citations. Unfortunately, the author has not kept a high standard of citing things, nor does he make it clear when he cites something less reliable. This makes it the case that one cannot just take the points for granted and have to check every interesting but potentially dubious claim.

I thought chapters 1-3 were the most interesting, as it was about the science of sex differences. The least interesting part was the one about fatherless families. Pretty much all he cites is a lot of correlational studies, and does not discuss the methodology either.

Its worth a read if one is interested in a huge collection of sex differences, but its not a good introduction to the science of that area. For that, try David Buss’s introduction to evolutionary psychology instead.

-

In 1966, a botched circumcision left one of two male identical

twins without a penis. A leading sex psychologist, Dr. John

Money of Johns Hopkins University, persuaded the parents to

raise the toddler as a female. When the child was twenty-two months

old, surgeons castrated him and constructed what appeared from

the outside to be female genitalia. Called Brenda and treated like a

girl, the child was later prescribed female steroids to “facilitate and

mimic female pubertal growth and feminization.”1

When Brenda was twelve, Dr. Money reported that she and

her parents had adjusted well.2 The media loved the story of the

“opposite-sex identical twins.” In a long report, Time magazine

called the case “strong support” for the view that “conventional

patterns of masculine and feminine behavior can be altered.” The

1979 Textbook of Sexual Medicine noted the girl’s “remarkably

feminine” development, which was taken as demonstrating the

flexibility and “plasticity of human gender identity and the rela-

tive importance of social learning and conditioning in this

process.”3

In academia, numerous introductory psychology and sociol-

ogy texts used the case to argue that sex roles are basically learned.4

Theorists who believed that gender roles are socially constructed

were ecstatic. In 1994, Judith Lorber described how the girl’s par-

ents “bent over backwards to feminize the girl and succeeded. Frilly

dresses, hair ribbons, and jewelry created a pride in looks, neatness

and ‘daintiness.’” The social construction of gender, she concluded,

“overrode any possibly inborn traits.”5

In retrospect, one wonders whether it is fair to say that what

happened to Brenda was simply “social construction.” With the injec-

tion of female hormones and without the male hormones coming

from testicles, Brenda was getting a bit more encouragement toward

femininity than families and society usually administer. Nonethe-

less, when the facts became more accurately known, it was clear

that neither the chemicals nor the socialization efforts had succeeded

in making Brenda a girl. Some hardworking researchers and jour-

nalists were able to show that Dr. Money had completely misrepre-

sented the results of his experiment. In the early 1990s, they located

the grown-up Brenda and found that she was now named David,

working in a slaughterhouse, married to a woman, and the adop-

tive father of three children.6 At age fourteen, Brenda had decided

to start living as a male, and at fifteen, she had been told the truth

about her biological past. She then announced that she had always

felt like a male and wanted to become one again. She was given a

mastectomy, male hormones and a constructed penis.

The story that emerged revealed that David had always acted

like a male even when everyone in his world had told him he was a

female and should behave like one. The first time “Brenda” was put

in a dress, she pulled it off. When given a jump rope, she tied people

up or whipped them with it. At nine, she bought a toy machine gun

when she was supposed to buy an umbrella. The toy sewing machine

went untouched; she preferred to build forts and play with dump trucks.

She rejected cosmetics and imitated her dad shaving. On a trip to New

York, she found the Rockettes to be sexy. She wanted to urinate stand-

ing up. On the playground, her kindergarten and elementary school

teachers were struck by her “pressing, aggressive need to dominate.”7

As the real story of the reconstruction of David was made pub-

lic, responsible researchers on the Johns Hopkins medical staff

decided they should find out what had become of the many boys

born without penises, most of whom had been castrated and sub-

sequently raised as girls. Of twenty-five located (ranging in age from

five to sixteen), every single one exhibited the rough-and-tumble

play more characteristic of boys than girls. Fourteen had declared

themselves to be boys, in one case as early as age five. Two children

were found who were born without a penis but had not been cas-

trated or sexually reassigned. Both these children, raised as boys, fit

in well with their male peers and “were better adjusted psycholog-

ically than the reassigned children.”8

On hearing this Johns Hopkins paper, Dr. Margaret Legato, a

Columbia University professor of medicine and an expert on sex-

ual differentiation, asserted: “When the brain has been masculin-

ized by exposure to testosterone [in the womb], it is kind of useless

to say to this individual, ‘you’re a girl.’ It is this impact of testos-

terone that gives males the feelings that they are men.”9

Im surprised it didnt work better than it did. This is a huge change in environment and hormonal levels, even castration. Nature is stubborn, very stubborn.

-

Other writers whose approach to gender has been influenced

by biology have more directly blamed feminists for ignoring or belit-

tling good science on sex differences.22 But the other side replies that

some of the sociobiological literature is filled with “sexism,” “biased

selection of examples” and “a social construction of gender that is

relatively independent of the facts.”23 Mainstream feminists regu-

larly charge that a hidden or not so hidden agenda meant to pre-

serve male status lies behind the sex difference research.24

Feminists who make charges of this kind are often remarkably

candid in declaring that their politics influence their scientific judg-

ments. Thus Anne Fausto-Sterling admits to demanding “the high-

est standards of proof . . . on claims about biological inequality.”25

Sheila Tobias, author of Overcoming Math Anxiety, says she does

research on girls and math to get the truth, but also to get the coun-

try to believe that girls have the potential to perform equally with

boys.26

Ah, the difference of standards of evidence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Note that this is not grounded in any claims about it being extraordinarily claims, and thus having a low prior and thus needing stronger evidence to get P>0.5.

-

Today, however, the majority of the sex difference researchers

who focus on biology are women. In preparing his book on sex dif-

ferences, Robert Pool read widely and spoke to many researchers

in the field, and was struck by the fact that this research fraternity

was “really a sorority. Most of the scientists doing the provocative,

ground-breaking research into human sex preferences are women.”

This seems to be for two reasons: First, men are wary about pub-

lishing any findings that might bring charges of sexism. Second,

some female researchers seem to have been suspicious about what

their male colleagues were up to; these women say they got involved

because they believed that male researchers were neglecting the seri-

ous study of women. Others did so because they were intrigued and

troubled by some differences favoring men and they wanted to find

out what could explain these results.37 Pool finds that almost all of

these female researchers “identify themselves as feminists or at least

sympathize with feminist goals. . . . They are not fools or tools of

male-dominated society, nor do they have any hidden agendas, and

they uniformly resent such implications.”38

Many of these female researchers also began their studies con-

vinced that sex differences were minimal and that societal forces

caused those that existed. John Williams and Deborah Best, for exam-

ple, began their international comparison of stereotypes believing

there was no basis for them, but concluded that they had “a substan-

tial degree of behavioral validity” and were explained in part by biol-

ogy.39 Similarly, Diane Halpern intended to demonstrate that any

gender differences in cognition were the result of “socialization prac-

tices, artifacts and mistakes in the research, and bias and prejudice.”

After reviewing a pile of journal articles that stood several feet high

and numerous books and book chapters that dwarfed the stack of

journal articles, I changed my mind. . . . [T]here are real, and in some

cases sizable, sex differences with respect to some cognitive abilities.

Socialization practices are undoubtedly important, [sic] there is also

good evidence that biological sex differences play a role.40

It is not usually pleasant to change one’s mind about core convic-

tions, but these researchers say the data has forced them to do so.41

Eleanor Maccoby’s research has led her to give more emphasis to

biology in her study of children. In a recent lecture, after noting the

stereotypical pattern of young boys’ and girls’ fantasy stories (Bat-

man and the like for boys, brides and ballet for girls), Maccoby told

her audience of fellow academics, “I too want to say, ‘ugh.’”42 But

the truth was the truth.

Nature really is stubborn.

-

Many other male hobbyists, like the Battlebot community of

technonerds, have interests that focus on machines or war. There

are the car enthusiasts, the model train lovers, the war board-game

connoisseurs, the Civil War buffs. These hobbyists are single-minded

about what they love; and studies have found single-mindedness

and a highly focused brain to be more characteristic of men than

women.107

This seems like an interesting claim, it is especially related to geniuses, of which there is an extreme sex ratio. Note 107 leads to: Moir, 1999, pp. 253–55; Lubinski et al., 1993, p. 702.

which leads to

Moir, Anne, and Bill Moir. 1999. Why Men Don’t Iron. New York:

Citadel Press.

Lubinski, David, C. P. Benbow and C. E. Sanders. 1993. Reconceptu-

alizing Gender Differences in Achievement among the Gifted. In

International Handbook of Research and Development of Gifted-

ness and Talent, ed. K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks and A. H. Passow.

London: Pergamon Press.

unfortunately, these are both books so i cant look them up easily.

-

In 1975, the California Department of Education went so far

as to reject reading texts with any portrayal of women in a house-

hold role. The publisher Open Court appealed the rejection of its

reading texts, which had already been revised to meet standards of

gender equality. (The publisher noted that California bureaucrats

had even complained about a brief reference to Mother Hubbard.)145

Open Court made little headway. In later editions of the text, for

example, The Little Engine That Could became female.

It may be time to start questioning the assumption that soci-

ety pressures young women to be homemakers. My observations of

bright University of Virginia students suggest that they feel pres-

sured in other directions entirely. I remember one young woman

with a 3.8 grade point average in economics who told me how furi-

ous she was at her economics professors. When she told them she

loved children and wanted to be an elementary school teacher, they

let her know they were disappointed—she could do so much more.

I encounter feminist students who seem to have absorbed all

of their teachers’ opinions but whose hearts appear to be at war

with their opinions. In class they are sure that women would be

physicists and engineers—or, at the very least, have demanding

careers of some kind—if it were not for discriminatory socializa-

tion. I remember one of my students who openly declared that she

was looking for a husband who would be the “wife” so she could

quickly advance in her career. But when our discussion meandered

into the popularity of romance novels, she said she read them all

the time. When I expressed surprise and asked why she would pur-

chase so many books filled with powerful and worldly heroes and

spirited but traditional heroines, she said, “Lots of things I do have

nothing to do with what I spout around campus all day.”

Indeed, the effect of the environment is proved to be of smaller importance, since women are routinely exposed to these anti-traditional stories, and yet they still prefer natural gender roles. Nature triumphs over environment here.

-

It is not surprising, though, that women everywhere seem to

care very much about how they look. In Syrian universities, women

attending classes with men spend as much time dressing for classes

as American women spend dressing for a dinner party. On the streets,

demure Muslim girls in head scarves practice a “below the knees

exhibitionism” with sheer stockings and sling-back heels beneath

their skirts.90 A student who spent a summer in a small Jordanian

city confirms that when Islamic women are not allowed to show

hair or ears and when they wear their skirts to their ankles, they use

more makeup than Western women do and spend more time on

pedicures. A recent study examining the self-images of Iranian-born

women living in Los Angeles and Tehran found that the latter group,

largely unexposed to Western media and required to wear body-

encasing clothes, were nonetheless more concerned about their weight

and more dissatisfied with their bodies, on average, than were the

women living in Los Angeles.91

We will see in the next section that men also have to compete,

in those areas that women care about. Still, it seems unfair, in some

cosmic sense, that men can attract women in different ways—through

success in politics, business, sports or music, for instance—whereas

for women so much depends on how they look. As a thoughtful author

of a book on beauty puts it, “Every woman finds herself, without her

consent, entered into a beauty contest with every other woman.”92

As long as men love female beauty, women will care about

their appearance. And the “male gaze” so often attacked bySex 61

mainstream feminists will continue to please as well as annoy. As a

younger woman, writer Anne Roche Muggeridge hated the street

taunts and the “horrid, cold-faced girl-watching in school corridors

and pubs.” But, like most women, she enjoyed being “approvingly

noticed.” She even liked—“very much” liked—the clearest sign of

such notice, the wolf-whistle:

Girls don’t know whether they are pretty or not. They stand in despair

in front of their mirrors and wail to their mothers: I look so ugly!

[Mothers reassure,] and the daughters don’t believe it. But when a

group of young, handsome male strangers spontaneously burst into

a chorus of admiring notes, a girl must, even in her confusion and

diffidence, experience a glow of pleasure and a dawning self-

confidence.

Muggeridge wishes she were still in “the being-whistled-at age

bracket.”93 Other women approaching their fifties also feel a loss

because men no longer gaze at them in “that safe but sexual kind

of way.”94 Indeed, feminists such as Germaine Greer are among those

who have complained about becoming invisible to men as they grow

older.95

It is impossible to please these women. Damned if u whistle, damned if u dont…

It also reminds me of a similarly natural but irrational man thing: trying to impress prostitutes. maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/book-review-superfreakonomics/

-

A few years ago, a student brought me a romance novel, Laura

Taylor’s Anticipation, that was used in her course on women’s lit-

erature. She said the climactic scene appeared to her to be a rape.

In it Spence declares that Viva and he will marry, and Viva asserts

they will not. Her blue eyes flash as she walks out of the room toward

her bedroom. He follows, relieves her of her wine glass, and smiles

at the outraged expression on her face. He scoops her up and deposits

her on the bed while shedding his clothes in record time. She glares

at him and says, “Are you deaf?” He gently topples her on her back.

Leaning over her, he efficiently jerked the front of her caftan apart,

sending dozens of buttons flying every which way, then stripped it

off her body.

What do you think you are doing?” she demanded as she glared

at him.

He watched her nipples tighten into mauve nuggets that invited his

mouth. “Easing your tension,” he announced in a matter of fact tone,

despite the heat flooding his loins and engorging his sex. He came

down over her, his hips lodging between her thighs, his upper body

weight braced by his arms. “As sexist as that probably sounds.”

She squirmed, trying to free herself, and a sound of fury burst out

of her when she failed to budge him.

Spence abruptly says their children should have names. She asks

what children; they are not getting married. He declares his love.

She asks if he is sure. He’s “‘never been more sure of anything in

my life.’” He asks if she will make babies and grow old with him.

“‘Yes, Yes, Yes!’” Then they make love “as their bodies, hearts and

souls mated forever.”141

This is very rough sex, in which consent comes only after the

man has forcefully and matter-of-factly stripped off the woman’s

clothes and placed his nude and aroused body between her legs. It

comes as the high point in a fantasy aimed at women.

There have been many academic studies of sexual fantasies.

One of the most interesting has found that pornographic films can

be classified by theme. Of the nine themes reported by psychologist

Roy Baumeister, the one that was by far the most sexually arousing

for women

involved a woman who was initially reluctant to have sex but changed

her mind during the scene and became an active willing participant

in sexual activity.142 [This study and another] suggest that the woman’s

transition from no to yes, as an idea, increases sexual excitement.

A review of the literature on sexual fantasies found that fantasies

of being overpowered and forced to have sex were far more common

among women than men. In some studies, over half the female sam-

ple reported fantasies of being overpowered, and other research found

a third of women endorsing such specific fantasies as being a slave

who must obey a man’s every wish. When women are given lists of

sexual fantasies to choose among, that of being forced sexually is

sometimes the first or second most frequently chosen one.

And the ubiquitous rape fantasies: www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/womens-rape-fantasies-how-common-what-do-they-mean

-

To proliferate their genes, our male ancestors either mated with

many women or promoted their offspring’s survival by supporting

and defending the mother and children. In a subculture where it is

possible to take either the quantity or the quality approach to sir-

ing the next generation, McSeed, with less of what social scientists

call “embodied capital” than more mainstream males, is better able

to succeed with the quantity approach.60 A white version of McSeed

was more recently in the news when the Wisconsin Supreme Court

affirmed a judgment forbidding a man named David Oakley from

having any more children until he supported those he already had.

Oakley, an unemployed factory worker, had nine children by four

different women.

that doesnt sound legal… where is the eugenics police?

besides, quality vs. quantity, see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory

besides, the roles that fathers can provide: resources and protection, we now have the state to be and the police. to be sure, fathers are still those paying for the state and hence the police, but they arent the immediate helper, making them seem less important.

-

In addition, one letter writer had a question about how to greet

a guy she had hooked up with who never called again, and another

asked whether the guy she slept with on the first date will think she

is a total slut. The “advice guy” responded that it depends on the

guy. A poll in another issue, however, found that 76 percent of male

respondents said they would not date again any girl they slept with

on the first date.

No source given. Really? why does it matter?

-

Men want more space than women do. In the workplace, men

have a much stronger desire than women for jobs with no close

supervision. Studies show that women like to be alone within the

confines of a bedroom or an office, whereas men are more likely to

need real isolation—a long drive or a trip to the mountains. Think

also of those frequently solitary and overwhelmingly male pastimes,

hunting and fishing. No matter how good their relationships, men

are far more likely than women to report that they need free time

to relax and pursue hobbies away from their mates.119

Boys do travel in large groups, bonded by a mutual interest in

the same activities; but they are relatively more attached to things,

less to people. From childhood, girls but not boys focus on close

relationships and, especially, a best friend.120 When female college

students tell stories about themselves, they speak of friends and com-

munity; they are often giving or receiving advice, and if they act

alone, something bad happens. Men’s stories are very frequently

about acting alone in contests, and they have happy outcomes.121

There is an okcupid question on this one can data mine:

How important is it to you to have your own unique “thing” (like a weekly Girls’ Night Out or Guys’ Movie Night) that you don’t share with your partner(s)?

Very – I need some ME time to be happy

Sort of – I need friends outside of my partner

Not much – I like sharing stuff with my partner

I’d prefer not to have exclusive things

-

Moreover, it is a massive risk to rely on modern medicine to

help reset the biological clock and make late childbirth safer. Recent

studies have revealed increased rates of major birth defects in infants

born through intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertil-

ization over those conceived naturally. Even after controlling for the

age of the mother and other factors, a child conceived by either IVF

or ICSI is still more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with a major

birth defect than is a naturally conceived child.135

probably due to insufficient embryo selection: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_quality

-

Women in their late twenties are, with reason, much more pes-

simistic today about ever marrying.139 Studies show that “the older

she gets, the harder it is for a college-educated woman to find a hus-

band.” College-educated women “tend to seek husbands who are

slightly older and have even higher levels of education and achieve-

ment than they do,”140 but the number of men in this already lim-

ited pool declines as women age. So it is not surprising that 63 percent

of women hope to meet their future husband in college. They will

never again be surrounded by so many eligible men who share their

interests and aspirations.

One wonders about the effects of the fact that there are now about 2 women per 1 man with a university degree. If womens hypergamy leads them to select blindly for degrees, there will be a lack of such men. Uh oh!

-

What does one say to a boy who continually badgers a girl for

oral sex? Or who sticks his crotch in the girl’s face? The answer is

that we can’t say much if we assume that there are no differences

between males and females. We often can get young people to be

more considerate by saying, “How would you feel if someone did

that to you?” That might work if a boy took a girl’s book bag. If

we say, “How would you feel if she did that to you” about the crotch-

in-the-face stunt, the boy is likely to say, “That would be great.”

Most boys don’t find this sort of behavior degrading or obnox-

ious. Why should they believe that girls do? If sex is recreational,

why is it degrading?

Another failing of the golden rule. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

the generalized failure condition for that is when people do not share interests or desires. if one tries to fix it one gets: act so that ur actions is what the other desires… which is just preference utilitarianism on a local level. ;)

-

Starting education early might be expected to improve the

school performance of inner-city children; and this does hold true

for girls. Those who went through Head Start are only one-third as

likely as girls of similar socioeconomic backgrounds to drop out of

high school years later. But for boys, Head Start seems to have no

effect on high school completion rates.104

cite goes to: Mathews and Strauss, 2000.

Mathews, Jay, and Valerie Strauss. 2000. Head Start Works for Girls.

Washington Post, 10 October.

meh!

I re-read Murrays description of Head Start studies.

www.aei.org/article/education/the-shaky-science-behind-obamas-universal-pre-k/

he writes

This brings us to the third-grade follow-up of the national impact assessment of Head Start, submitted to the government in October and released to the public late last year. Head Start has been operating since the 1960s. After decades of evaluations that mostly showed no effects, Congress decided in 1998 to mandate a large-scale, rigorous, independent evaluation of Head Start’s impact, including randomized assignment, representative samplings of programs and a comprehensive set of outcomes observed over time.

Of the 47 outcome measures reported separately for the 3- year-old and 4-year-old cohorts that were selected for the treatment group, 94 separate results in all, only six of them showed a statistically significant difference between the treatment and control group at the .05 level of probability — just a little more than the number you would expect to occur by chance. The evaluators, recognizing this, applied a statistical test that guards against such “false discoveries.” Out of the 94 measures, just two survived that test, one positive and one negative.

The executive summary is here:

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/resource/third-grade-follow-up-to-the-head-start-impact-study-final-report-executive

In summary, there were initial positive impacts from having access to Head Start, but

by the end of 3rd grade there were very few impacts found for either cohort in any of the four

domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting practices. The few impacts that

were found did not show a clear pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts for children.

Head start does NOT WORK.

-

But the progress that Senator Kennedy wants will come at the

expense of lost opportunities for still more male athletes. From 1985

to 1997, over 21,000 collegiate spots for male athletes disappeared.

Over 359 teams for men have disappeared just since 1992.8

Christine Stolba of the Independent Women’s Forum commented to the

Title IX commission that “Between 1993 and 1999 alone 53 men’s

golf teams, 39 men’s track teams, 43 wrestling teams, and 16 base-

ball teams have been eliminated. The University of Miami’s diving

team, which has produced 15 Olympic athletes, is gone.”9

I didnt know anyone was foolish enuf to have affirmative action for sports…

-

But the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education

rules that cheerleading and competitive dance are not sports, and

that participants do not count for Title IX compliance purposes.

The principal problem seems to be that cheerleaders and dance teams

usually perform to raise spirit at contests played by other, usually

male, athletes.92 As one ex-cheerleader told me, cheerleading has a

selfless quality—it’s getting people to yell for other people.

Apparently it doesn’t matter if these people compete as well

as cheer for others. The Office of Civil Rights deems that at least

half their appearances must be in a competitive setting, or their activ-

ity is not a sport. In response, the University of Maryland recently

divided its cheerleading team into a “spirit squad” and a competi-

tive squad. The latter group will perform only at competitions and

will be eligible for scholarship money, a move “designed to keep

Maryland in compliance with Title IX while returning some schol-

arships to the school’s eight underfunded men’s programs.”

Senior team member Erin Valenti opted to stay with the spirit

squad, which must fundraise to cover its costs. “They’re splitting

us only so they can convince whoever the head of Title IX is that

cheerleading can be considered a sport,” she said. “To make it a

sport, you’re taking out the whole reason to do cheering to begin

with.” That is, the cheering part.93

The Women’s Sports Foundation’s Web page contains a posi-

tion statement supporting the current policies that deny sports sta-

tus to cheerleaders who compete less than they cheer for others.94

But the Web page also has a “Women’s Sports on TV” section that

includes listings for yoga and aerobics shows.95 If yoga and aero-

bics are sports, why aren’t cheerleading and dance?

I rather universities did not have these sports stuff. Its a US thing, or at least DA universities do not do this. They do something else tho, have science show competitions.

there is a european page about it here: wiki.europhysicsfun.org/

-

Not only do these feminists want to limit women’s choices, but

NOW also wants to withhold information that might lead women

to make the “wrong” choices. I noted earlier that many highly edu-

cated women greatly overestimate their chances of getting pregnant

after age forty. In the summer of 2002, the American Society for

Reproductive Medicine wanted to place public service ads in shop-

ping malls and movie theaters that could have helped correct this

misinformation. The ads were designed to enable women to make

reproductive choices based on the facts. In particular, they wanted

to tell women how they could prevent infertility.

The opposition of groups such as NOW aborted the whole

program. The ad that particularly angered NOW contained the mes-

sage: “Advancing Age Decreases Your Ability to Have Children.”

NOW accused the doctors of using “scare tactics.” They further

argued that “the ads sent a negative message to women who might

want to delay or skip childbearing in favor of career pursuits.”139

-

Some sleep scientists believe that the mothers’ breathing and

heartbeat would help prevent sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

if Western mothers slept with their children. This view is controver-

sial with some U.S. doctors who emphasize the instances of adults

inadvertently suffocating babies who share their bed.196 Nonethe-

less, the international comparisons are striking. The U.S. has far and

away the highest rate of SIDS in the world (2 per 1,000)—ten times

higher than Japan and one hundred times higher than Hong Kong,

both countries where mothers routinely sleep with their children. In

most of the world, parents sleep with their young children, and the

lowest incidences of SIDS are in societies with widespread co-sleeping.

Sounds too easy to be true. According to Wiki, it is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome

-

I wrote Meg and asked if she did not think that people have a

tendency to say that things—like marriage—are not all that impor-

tant to them if they think that there is a decent chance they won’t

happen. Psychologically, it’s tough to get through days if things you

desperately want aren’t happening; it seems logical to downplay

their importance. So perhaps it can be tough for women to be hon-

est with themselves about their own desires.

She replied in the affirmative:

I’d say your point about downplaying goals that seem out of reach

is quite valid. The problem is that it’s self-perpetuating; for societal

reasons marriage and family become difficult to obtain, thus women

deny that they want these things, thus they become even more diffi-

cult to obtain because they’ve been deprioritized.

See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes

-

They do not generally understand female-style emotional support.

They are used to helping a pal by downplaying his troubles or giv-

ing advice, not by sympathetically hearing him out. In one study,

98 percent of wives reported that they wanted their husbands to

talk more about their thoughts and feelings.17 For men, problems

call for advice or action, not talk. When told he should show his

wife more affection, one man went home and washed her car.18

Very common problem in M-F relationships, i think.

Paper: Gendered Shopping: A Seven Country Comparison (Ellis et al)

Gendered Shopping A Seven Country Comparison

Abstract

Studies in Western countries have revealed that women spend more time shopping than do men with the exception of online shopping. To extend this finding to non-Western populations, the present study used identical methods of observing visitors to indoor shopping malls in seven different countries. Three of the countries were Western (Canada, Spain, and the United States) and four were non-Western (China, Laos, Malaysia, and Turkey). In all seven countries, the proportion of women significantly exceeded the proportion of men. Among children and adolescents, female also outnumbered their male cohorts in most of the seven countries, although the differences were not always statistically significant. Theoretical explanations for these findings are explored. Overall, we propose that the most credible explanation involves a combination of social, evolutionary, and neurohormonal variables. Key Words: Sex differences; Shopping; Cross-cultural (Canada, China, Laos, Malaysia, Spain, Turkey, United States).

Furthermore, women report enjoying shopping more than do men (Alreck & Settle, 2002; Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980; Rook & Hoch, 1985; Seock & Bailey, 2008). A study by Swaminathan et al. (1999) indicated that men and women have different “orientations” to shopping. Basically, men are more oriented toward shopping if and where it is most convenient and least time-consuming; whereas women seem to savor prolonged shopping experiences, especially when they can share the experiences with others (Rook & Hoch, 1985).

The data just screans human nature, not social roles.

Review: Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social Scientists (Barkow ed.)

[Jerome_H._Barkow]_Missing_the_Revolution_Darwini(Bookos.org)

In general, this was a short and interesting read. Made me want to read other material by Anne Campbell. The last chapter is skipable, just as Kanazawa said when he reviewed the book.

 

 

Women’s “natural” empathy is seen not as an obstacle to impartial observa-

tion but rather as an asset that affords them a different “way of knowing”

(Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986). This empathy is endorsed

even in the nonhuman sciences; “If you want to understand about a tumour,

you’ve got to be a tumour” (Goodfield, 1981, p. 213). Allied to this is an ori-

entation toward the idiographic or at least an avoidance of generalization:

Each woman is unique, and sweeping statements about women in general

or classes of women are viewed with suspicion.

 

This is the most stupid claim of ‘personal experience’-favoring people ive ever read.

 

 

The second strand of thought is an explicit acknowledgment of the po-

litical nature of feminist research (Cole & Phillips, 1995). Its aim is to im-

prove the lives of women (“The information-gathering purpose of research

thus takes second place to a facilitative and liberatory one” [Burr, 1998,

p. 139]), rather than to serve existing patriarchal institutions. Because no

firm line is drawn between the researcher and the researched, the fruits of

feminist research benefit the former as much as the latter (“Inquiry, as I have

portrayed it, is an uncertain, vulnerable process with immense potential for

personal growth and intellectual creativity” [Marshall, 1986, p. 208]). It is

clear that the feminist political agenda takes precedence over “malestream”

social science. Psychologist Celia Kitzinger (1990, pp. 121–122) is blunt in

her denouncement: “Having identified psychology as incompatible with

feminism because of its refusal to deal with political realities, and its pre-

tence at objectivity, feminists with a professional involvement in the disci-

pline then sought to redefine and harness psychology for the feminist cause.”

In extremis, this has lead to the wholesale rejection of psychology as con-

flicting with feminist ideology: “The antipsychology approach [which grants

all psychological data and theories a severely limited validity, or even rejects

them completely] is the one which I shall argue offers most to feminist psy-

chology” (Squire, 1990, p. 79).

 

They are beyond hope. But the wording is good, “malestream science”, ill have to remember that when pointing out that males are dominating in science.

 

Its apparently not completely niche: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malestream

 

See also a random article that uses it here: www.progressivewomen.org.uk/the-cultural-malestream-a-dramatic-misrepresentation-of-women/

 

The above is complaining about the underrepresentation of women in films and theater, apparently missing the obvious ideas:

 

As a prepubescent actress at an all-girls’ school I had the chance to play a plethora of roles.  In fact, I mostly cross-dressed: from a Scottish medieval knight to a chain-smoking, juvenile delinquent.  The opportunity to be whoever I wanted to be, to dream up characters far removed from myself is what turned me onto acting.  Inevitably, the real world burst that creative bubble.  On work experience at the Royal Court Theatre, I had the mind-numbing task of separating acting CVs into male and female.  The exercise proved instructive: the women’s pile doubled the men’s.  There was no mistaking the visual metaphor: the odds were quite literally stacked against me.

The issue isn’t that there are more women actors than men; it’s the double bind that there are far fewer roles for women than men.  Women are not proportionally represented, even though the majority of the viewing public, for both theatre and television, is female.

As an art form, theatre purports to be progressive.  Yet, a 2006 study by Sphinx theatre company[1] showed that out of 140 national theatre productions, 62% of roles were for men and 38% for women.  Although more women go to the theatre than men, they are still watching plays in which men play central roles.  It’s no coincidence that 70% of these plays were written by and 69% directed by men.  Despite the significant numbers of female actors, writers and directors, the industry remains male-dominated.

 

Does it occur to her that women might just not be as interesting characters? They certainly are not if we look at history. Since they, according to her, are the majority of the viewers, perhaps they just like to watch men? These are obviously hypotheses to me.

 

It still astounds me that casting is so overtly and unashamedly discriminatory.  Unlike any other industry, more often than not, an actor is primarily hired on the basis of sex, race and appearance.  In this past week, I analysed breakdowns from several casting websites to which I subscribe: 72% sought male actors, while just 28% advertised for women.  It’s not only the number of roles available to women; it’s the quality of these roles, which often perpetuate patriarchal stereotypes and/or sexually objectify women.  Here are a few gems:

Ah, the sociologist’s second fallacy! Which i will expand to not just racism, but any discrimination. There are some obvious solutions for complainer above: Become a screenwriter and start writing plays with more women. Become a director, start making films with more women. Convince other women not to go into acting (thus increasing demand and wages for those there).

 

 

This question of whether ideas that are promulgated through discourse

are veridical is one that constructionists finesse because they reject the

methods by which “facts” and “truth” are established. But in a crucial way,

their avoidance of this question places them in a very awkward position in

relation to their aims of both representing women’s experiences and im-

proving women’s lives. Constructionists’ analyses of women’s experiences

are negotiable, provisional, and subjective “glosses” of women’s negotiable,

provisional, and subjective discourse about themselves. Since there is no

“self,” aside from its situated constitution in text, it makes no sense to lay

claim to “accuracy” in any description of women’s lives since the term is

meaningless without a criterion for factuality. In addition, if there are no

facts (encapsulated in Derrida’s famous dictum “There is nothing outside the

text”), then constructionists are forced to concede that men’s historical op-

pression of women, the suffering of abused wives, and working women’s in-

ability to break through the glass ceiling are not facts but situated social

constructions.

 

Hah.

 

 

Social constructionists not only refuse to seriously address the possibil-

ity of a social reality beyond the text (that may or may not be accurately rep-

resented in discourse) but are equally reluctant to consider the origins of

everyday discourses. If the stronger male sex drive is a collective fiction, then

where did it originate? Which sex benefits from it? Why is it not discon-

firmed by thousands of women’s own experience? At what age and how do

young people acquire it? These are, we are told, illegitimate “mechanical”

questions:

 

But to assume the mechanical reproduction of discourse requires ask-

ing how it got to be like that in the first place. And that question is in

danger of throwing theory back into answers according to the terms

of biological, Oedipal or social and economic determinisms. (Hollway,

1984, pp. 238–239)

 

This reminds me of Jussim et al’s article The Unbearable Accuracy of Stereotypes. Quotes here. Where do stereotypes come from? Usually, they come from the shared experiences of many, many people. Although they can be invented as well. But since they are usually grounded in facts, they are reasonably accurate.

 

 

At the biological heart of sex differences lies anisogamy—the vastly un-

equal size (and consequent energetic cost) of gametes contributed by male

and female in sexual reproduction. As Williams (1996, p. 118) points out,

anisogamy marks the start of male exploitation of females. “When egg-

producers reproduce, they must bear the entire nutritional burden of nur-

turing the offspring. By contrast, the sperm-makers reproduce for free. A

sperm is not a contribution to the next generation; it is a claim on contribu-

tions put into the egg by another individual. Males of most species make no

investments in the next generation, but merely compete with one another

for the opportunity to exploit investments made by females.” When com-

bined with internal fertilization, the stage is set for an even greater inequal-

ity in parental investment for two main reasons. First, the cost to the female

of abandoning the embryo or newborn is far greater than to the male. At any

given point in time she has made the greater commitment to the offspring

(in terms of time and energy) and will suffer a higher replacement cost if she

deserts it (all the more true in humans, where her reproductive future is

truncated by menopause). Second, internal fertilization introduces uncer-

tainty about paternity. While a female need never doubt that the offspring

to which she gives birth is her own, males must entertain the possibility of

cuckoldry. The degree of paternal care depends, across species, on the male’s

certainty that he is the biological father. Doubt reduces the likelihood of

male investment and leaves the mother “holding the baby.” For these rea-

sons, in over 90% of mammals, it is the female who exclusively cares for the

young. As primates, humans are remarkable on three counts. First, they

must cope with a very protracted period of infant dependency. Babies are

born, biologically speaking, about nine months prematurely so that the huge

cranium can pass through the pelvis—a channel that could not grow larger

without compromising the mother’s bipedal locomotion. Sexual maturity is

not attained for 12 to 14 years because an extensive learning period is re-

quired to master the complexity of the social environment that humans

must navigate. Second, humans display a very high degree of paternal care

relative to other primates. Men did not elect this route as a favor to

women—selection does not favor strategies that selflessly benefit others at a

net cost to the donor. Polygyny (men taking multiple mates) can offer huge

reproductive benefits to a man, but the sheer mathematics of the situation

mean that a high proportion of the less desirable will fail to reproduce at

all—and may not even survive the intense degree of male competition that

polygyny engenders. The prizes are high, but the odds are strongly stacked

against winning. For most men, it would be more advantageous to remain

with one woman and increase the likelihood of their joint offspring surviv-

ing than to court multiple women whose offspring had a low survival prob-

ability for lack of male investment. Third, human males are also notable for

the degree of control that they exercise over their mates. These three facts

are not unconnected. The high and protracted dependence of young grow-

ing humans means that they benefit from care by both parents. These long-

term costs are only likely to be met by males who have high levels of paternal

certainty. That certainty requires close mate guarding of female partners.

 

About the differences in preproductive outcome. The classical source given is: www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

 

where it is written (was said):

The Most Underappreciated Fact

            The firstbig, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciatedfact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors werewomen?

It’s not a trick question, and it’snot 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but that’s notthe question. We’re asking about all the people who ever lived who have a descendant living today. Or, put another way, yes,every baby has both a mother and a father, but some of those parents hadmultiple children.

            Recentresearch using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended fromtwice as many women as men.

            I thinkthis difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To getthat kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entirehistory of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

 

He cites no specific study. But see: Favre, Maroussia, and Didier Sornette. “Strong gender differences in reproductive success variance, and the times to the most recent common ancestors.Journal of Theoretical Biology (2012).

 

Abstract:

The Time to the Most Recent Common Ancestor (TMRCA) based on human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is estimated to be twice that based on the non-recombining part of the Y chromosome (NRY). These TMRCAs have special demographic implications because mtDNA is transmitted only from mother to child, while NRY is passed along from father to son. Therefore, the former locus reflects female history, and the latter, male history. To investigate what caused the two-to-one female–male TMRCA ratio rF/M=TF/TMrF/M=TF/TM in humans, we develop a forward-looking agent-based model (ABM) with overlapping generations. Our ABM simulates agents with individual life cycles, including life events such as reaching maturity or menopause. We implemented two main mating systems: polygynandry and polygyny with different degrees in between. In each mating system, the male population can be either homogeneous or heterogeneous. In the latter case, some males are ‘alphas’ and others are ‘betas’, which reflects the extent to which they are favored by female mates. A heterogeneous male population implies a competition among males with the purpose of signaling as alpha males. The introduction of a heterogeneous male population is found to reduce by a factor 2 the probability of finding equal female and male TMRCAs and shifts the distribution of rF/MrF/M to higher values. In order to account for the empirical observation of the factor 2, a high level of heterogeneity in the male population is needed: less than half the males can be alphas and betas can have at most half the fitness of alphas for the TMRCA ratio to depart significantly from 1. In addition, we find that, in the modes that maximize the probability of having 1.5<rF/M<2.51.5<rF/M<2.5, the present generation has 1.4 times as many female as male ancestors. We also tested the effect of sex-biased migration and sex-specific death rates and found that these are unlikely to explain alone the sex-biased TMRCA ratio observed in humans. Our results support the view that we are descended from males who were successful in a highly competitive context, while females were facing a much smaller female–female competition.

 

Back to the book!

 

 

Socialization explanations of sex differences are built on the foundation of

the tabula rasa infant shaped, rewarded, and punished until it conforms to

societal demands for sex-appropriate behavior. They first took shape in the

era of behaviorist learning theory. The account was a simple one; parents

treat boys and girls differently, reinforcing the correct behavior in each. Boys

are encouraged to fight, climb trees, and play football. Girls are forced to

wear dresses, play with dolls, and share. The “Baby X” paradigm was hailed

as conclusive evidence of socialization differences (e.g., Will, Self, & Datan,

1976). A six-month-old baby was wrapped in a blue or a pink blanket, iden-

tified as a boy or a girl, then handed to a woman who was asked to look after

it for a few minutes. When told it was a girl, the women more often offered

the infant a doll in preference to other toys. Surely this showed that parents

treat infants differently as a function of their biological sex?

 

But there was a problem. Despite many attempts at replication, the ef-

fect seemed even weaker than it had on first sight appeared (and recall the

effect was found only for toy selection—there were no differences in social

behavior to the infant). It was certainly not strong enough to support the

whole edifice of sex differences (Stern & Karraker, 1989). And even if par-

ents gave their children different toys, such a finding would be trivial unless

it could be shown that the toys changed the child’s subsequent behavior. But

the real challenge came when Lytton and Romney (1991) collected from

around the world 172 studies that had examined the way in which parents

treat their sons and daughters. Considering them all together, the evidence

for differential treatment was virtually nil. Parents did not differ in the

amount of interaction with the child, the warmth they showed, their ten-

dency to encourage either dependency or achievement, their restrictiveness,

their use of discipline, their tendency to reason with the child, or the amount

of aggression that they tolerated. There was one area that showed a differ-

ence. Parents tended to give their children sex-appropriate toys. But sex-

differentiated toy preference has been found in infants from nine months of

age (Campbell, Shirley, Heywood, & Crook, 2000). Children play more

with sex-appropriate toys even when their parents do not specifically en-

courage them to do so (Caldera, Huston, & O’Brien, 1989). It is quite likely

that parents are not using toys to turn their children into gender conformists

but are simply responding to the child’s own preferences.

 

Didnt know of that meta-analysis. Heres the abstract:

 

A meta-analysis of 172 studies attempted to resolve the conflict between previous narrative reviews on whether parents make systematic differences in their rearing of boys and girls. Most effect sizes were found to be nonsignificant and small. In North American studies, the only socialization area of 19 to display a significant effect for both parents is encouragement of sex-typed activities. In other Western countries, physical punishment is applied significantly more to boys. Fathers tend to differentiate more than mothers between boys and girls. Over all socialization areas, effect size is not related to sample size or year of publication. Effect size decreases with child’s age and increases with higher quality. No grouping by any of these variables changes a nonsignificant effect to a significant effect. Because little differential socialization for social behavior or abilities can be found, other factors that may explain the genesis of documented sex differences are discussed.

 

Probably, a newer one exist by now. But interesting nonetheless.

 

 

Anyway, if parents’ behavior toward their children was being guided by

their desire for them to conform to traditional gender stereotypes than we

would expect to find that the most sex-typed adults have the most sex-typed

children. Yet studies find that there is no relationship between traditional

household division of labor, parents’ attitudes to sex-typing, their sex-

typical activities, and their reactions to children’s behavior on one hand

and children’s degree of sex-typing on the other (Maccoby, 1998)

 

So much for those typical explanations…

 

 

Following these early views of the child shaped by selective reinforce-

ment came social learning theory, which emphasized a hitherto neglected

(but altogether central primate) capacity—imitation. This was co-opted into

an explanation of sex differences by proposing that children selectively im-

itate their same-sex parent. Laboratory studies were done in which children

were exposed to adult “models” performing a variety of novel behaviors. If

social learning theorists were right, then the statistical analysis would show

a significant interaction between sex-of-model and sex-of-child—girls would

imitate women and boys would imitate men. Dozens of such studies failed

to find such an effect (Huston, 1983; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). Perry and

Bussey (1979) devised an ingenious experiment that avoided the pitfalls of

the previous studies, where children had a one-off exposure to an adult

model. They showed children a film of eight adults selecting a preferred

fruit. In one condition all four men made one choice (e.g., orange), while all

four women made another (e.g., apple). In another condition, three men and

one woman chose an orange while three women and one man chose an

apple. In another condition half the men chose oranges and half the women

chose apples. They found that the extent to which children copied an adult

preference depended upon the proportion of their sex that made that

choice. In the first condition, there was a high degree of same-sex imitation,

in the second a much smaller amount, and in the third, there was no signif-

icant difference between the girls and boys in their choices. What this sug-

gested was that children were not slavishly imitating a same-sex adult but

rather judging the appropriateness of a particular (in this case wholly arbi-

trary) preference on the basis of the proportion of male or female adults who

made it. These results helped to make sense of previous work, which had

already shown that children tended to imitate activities that they already

knew to be sex-typed regardless of the sex of the model who was currently

engaged in it (Barkley, Ullman, Otto, & Brecht, 1977). What was important

was the child’s internal working model of gender and behavior.

 

Interesting.

 

 

Many developmentalists had already rebelled against the thoroughly passive

view of the child constructed by learning theory. Martin and Halverson

(1981) argued that children have a natural tendency to think categorically.

They form categories about all sorts of things, from animals to sports, and it

would be surprising if they did not, very early in life, form categories of male

and female. Once these categories are formed, all incoming information that

is gender-related gets shunted into the correct binary slot, and over time a

stereotype is built up about what males and females look like, do, and enjoy.

It is this internal model or gender schema, not the surveillance of parents,

which drives the child toward sex-appropriate behavior. At the very same

time that this proposal was being offered for child development, Bem

(1974) was proposing an identical scheme to explain adult differences in

sex-typing. The degree to which we “type” information as gender-relevant

is an individual difference variable. Women who strongly sex-type informa-

tion become more stereotypically feminine than women who are less in-

clined to tag information with gender labels. The cognitive revolution had

come to sex differences: it was not a matter of behavioral training, it was a

matter of mental categorizing, organizing, and recalling.

 

But gender schema theory was so cognitive that it left no room for an

adapted mind. The cracks inevitably began to appear. One problem was tim-

ing: sex differences in toy choice, play styles, activity levels, and aggression

are found as early as two years of age (Brooks & Lewis, 1974; Fagot, 1991;

Freedman, 1974; Howes, 1988; Kohnstamm, 1989; O’Brien & Huston,

1985; Roopnarine, 1986), but children are not able to correctly sort pic-

tures of boys and girls into piles until their third year (Weinraub, Clements,

Sockloff, Ethridge, & Myers, 1984). Children prefer sex-congruent toys

before they are able to say whether the toy is more appropriate for a boy or

a girl (Blakemore, LaRue, & Olejnik, 1979). They prefer to interact with

members of their own sex and show sex differences in social behavior before

they can label different behaviors as being more common among boys or

girls (Serbin, Moller, Gulko, Powlishta, & Colburne, 1994; Smetana &

Letourneau, 1984). Longitudinal studies confirm that sex-typed behavior

does not wait upon gender labeling (Campbell, Shirley, & Candy, under re-

view; Fagot & Leinbach, 1989; Trautner, 1992). A second problem was

correspondence: even when children’s gender stereotypes crystallize and

peak at about seven years of age, there is no relationship between a child’s

gender knowledge and how sex-stereotypic their own behavior is (Serbin

et al., 1994; Martin, 1994; Powlishta, 1995). Children seem to need neither

the ability to discriminate the sexes nor an understanding of gender stereo-

typic behavior to show sex differences.

 

Didnt know this! Very cool.

 

 

During the last twenty years there has been a significant change in the

nature of women’s labor, as women have moved into many arenas tradi-

tionally occupied by men. We might therefore expect to see a shift in both

stereotypes and self-perceptions by men and women. No such shift has

occurred (Helmreich, Spence, & Gibson, 1982; Lewin & Tragos, 1987;

Lueptow, 1985; Lueptow, Garovich, & Lueptow, 1995). Furthermore, we

would expect to see a fair degree of cultural specificity, with “traditional” so-

cieties showing more marked stereotypes than more egalitarian ones. We do

not (Williams & Best, 1982). Social role theory supposes that sex differences

are responsive to stereotypes and hence that stereotypes should be more ex-

treme and polarized than actual sex differences. They are not (Swim, 1994).

We are left with the alternative suggestion that stereotypes are reasonably

accurate assessments of the typical differences between men and women.

Rather than stereotypes causing sex differences, the reverse is the case. If this

is true, then we at least have a means of explaining the typical division of

labor between the sexes (women elect to spend more time than men do in

parenting activities). Although Eagly acknowledges that two biological fac-

tors (gestation and lactation in women, and size and strength in men) may

be implicated in the division of labor, for her biology stops at the neck: “This

viewpoint assumes that men and women have inherited the same evolved

psychological dispositions” (Eagly & Wood, 1999, p. 224). While anisogamy

may have forced the reproductive burden upon women, Eagly and Wood

make the implausible argument that there has been no commensurate adap-

tation of their goals, strategies, or preferences.

 

Nobody can seriously doubt that environmental and cultural factors in-

fluence the expression of sex differences. But to acknowledge the impact of

culture upon the surface structure of femininity is not to say that gender has

no biological basis and that the nature of men and women is wholly con-

structed by society. The problem with such a position is that it fails to ad-

dress the issue of why sex differences take the particular form that they do.

If gender differences are arbitrary, it is a curious coincidence that they fol-

low such a similar pattern around the world (Brown, 1991; Murdock, 1981).

Even if sex differences were driven by differential parental treatment, we

would still want to ask why a trait is considered more desirable for one sex

than another. If they were driven by selective imitation, we would still want

to ask why children might show an untutored interest in their own sex. If

driven by gender schema, we would need to ask why sex-specific conformity

is so attractive to children. If driven by the division of labor, we still need to

explain the preference of men and women for agentic and expressive occu-

pational roles. Liberal feminists explain the transmission of the status quo—

but without asking where it came from.

 

For newer data about this, see: roseproject.no/, especially the summary here: roseproject.no/network/countries/norway/eng/nor-Sjoberg-Schreiner-overview-2010.pdf (english)

 

In the more egalitarian countries, sex differences are larger not smaller! It would seem that the more free women are made, the more they choose interests and work closer to their natural inclinations.

 

 

It is hard to know what to make of Fausto-Sterling’s (1992, p. 199)

claim that “there is no single undisputed claim about universal human be-

havior (sexual or otherwise).” Presumably even the most ardent cultural rel-

ativist would accept that everywhere people live in societies, that they eat,

sleep, and make love, and that women give birth and men do not. Some fem-

inist biologists refuse to engage in any debate about the evolved nature of

psychological sex differences by denying that two sexes even exist. Muldoon

and Reilly (1998, p. 55) believe that “the objectivity of “hard science” in this

area can be questioned, so much so that the biological definition of sex itself

becomes untenable.” They suggest that there is no biological basis for our

belief in male and female as “dichotomous, mutually exclusive categories”

(see also Bem, 1993). Notwithstanding these authors’ uncertainty, most

feminists accept that the vast majority of the population belongs to one of

two biologically distinct sexes. Indeed, most feminists acknowledge that the

reproductive differences between them are the result of evolution.

 

The problems seem to arise when we move from biological functioning

of the body to the biological functioning of the brain—which are seen as

quite unrelated (Bem, 1993). Though everywhere women are the principle

caretakers of children, the fact that there may be variation in how that task

is fulfilled leads some anthropologists to conclude that mothering is not uni-

versal (Moore, 1988). This is analogous to arguing that because people eat

different food in different parts of the world, eating is not universal. Fortu-

nately, Donald Brown (1991), trained in the standard ethnographic tradi-

tion, has documented the extent of human universals. Of special interest to

the study of gender we find: binary distinctions between men and women,

division of labor by sex, more child-care by women, more aggression and

violence by men, and acknowledgment of different natures of men and

women.

 

Even though the brain is the most expensive organ in the human body

in terms of calorie consumption, even though feminists accept that hominid

brain size itself was a result of natural selection, and even though the pro-

duction of the very hormones that orchestrate bodily differences originate

in the brain, many social science feminists reject the notion that evolution

could have had an impact on the minds of the two sexes. Though success-

ful reproduction is the reason for our existence today and though the sexes

play vital and different roles in that process, they reject any notion that their

minds may have been sculpted by millions of years of evolution to set dif-

ferent goals or pursue different strategies.

 

This reminds me of the similar claims made about races. Everybody acknowledge that racial differences in skin color and the like are due to evolution. Things like racially affected diseases are also mainstream: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews.

 

But when it comes to mental attributes, surely, they deny evolution any significant change over the last thousands of years since africans separated from non-africans out of Africa, or Asians from Caucasians, and so on. Jensen wrote in The g Factor p. 433 that:

 

Of the approximately 100,000 human polymorphic genes, about 50,000 are

functional in the brain and about 30,000 are unique to brain functions.1121 The

brain is by far the structurally and functionally most complex organ in the human

body and the greater part of this complexity resides in the neural structures of

the cerebral hemispheres, which, in humans, are much larger relative to total

brain size than in any other species. A general principle of neural organization

states that, within a given species, the size and complexity of a structure reflect

the behavioral importance of that structure. The reason, again, is that structure

and function have evolved conjointly as an integrated adaptive mechanism. But

as there are only some 50,000 genes involved in the brain’s development and

there are at least 200 billion neurons and trillions of synaptic connections in the

brain, it is clear that any single gene must influence some huge number of

neurons— not just any neurons selected at random, but complex systems of

neurons organized to serve special functions related to behavioral capacities.

It is extremely improbable that the evolution of racial differences since the

advent of Homo sapiens excluded allelic changes only in those 50,000 genes

that are involved with the brain.

 

An analogous case is true for another biological group distinction: men and women. Given the possibility of sex-linked genes, it seems entirely unreasonable to expect evolution never to make use of this for the brain. Indeed, we know this isnt the case because hormones are partly controlled in the brain. Why then apriori exclude other sex-linked genes for the brain? It makes no sense at all, and is a clear case of prejudiced opinions.

 

That being said, it is now known that there are actually fewer genes in humans than estimated when Jensen wrote that in 1998. This however does little to affect the above theoretical reasoning. www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/genenumber.shtml

 

 

The first is the “Show me the gene” argument, which maintains that we

need not accept the hereditary basis of any trait until biologists locate the

gene responsible. As I have just discussed, phenotypic behavior is not re-

ducible to a gene; it depends upon incredibly complex cascades of interac-

tions with the environment. We will never find a one-to-one relationship

between a gene and a life history strategy (e.g., mature early and breed plen-

tifully versus mature late and invest heavily) because all members of a

species have the ability to take either route and the one that is selected is a

function of environmental factors such as crowding, stress, status, and deve-

lopmental experiences. Even discounting environmental effects, the bio-

logical (to say nothing of psychological) development of a single trait could

not be a straightforward mapping exercise because of pleiotropy (where

a single gene affects two or more apparently unrelated traits), polygenics

(where a single trait is controlled by many genes), nonadditivity (where

genes at different loci interact) and switch genes (higher-order genes control

the action of many others). These complexities aside, evolutionary psychol-

ogists are not geneticists, and it is unreasonable to expect them to be. But

this does not mean that psychologists must remain gagged until then. When

we see universal complexities of psychological design that suggest an adap-

tation, it is reasonable to test such a proposal—just as alternative formula-

tions (e.g., sex differences are absent where children possess no cognitive

categories for male and female) are free to test theirs.

 

This objection is particularly stupid. It is also made with respect to races. I wonder if people also make it with respect to evolution? After all, Darwin had no good idea of the gene, and the biological basis for it wasnt even discovered until 1950ish. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA#History_of_DNA_research

 

Its a case of setting irrationally high evidence requirements for a claim inconsistent with one’s current beliefs.

 

 

The real attack on Wilson’s book started in the fall of 1975 with a letter from

the Sociobiology Study Group to the New York Review of Books (Allen et al.,

1975). In that letter, Sociobiologywas being connected to nazism and racism,

and Wilson was said to support a conservative agenda by emphasizing the

genetic underpinnings of human behavior. Actually, though Wilson’s book

was more than 500 pages long, only the last chapter was devoted to the

human species. There he argued that a number of behaviors, including sex

roles, aggression, altruism, and even moral and religious beliefs, could well

have a biological basis. To boost this argument, he drew parallels to the

behavior of other primates and invoked research on selected traits from be-

havioral genetics and twin studies, suggesting that additional traits may turn

out to have a similar genetic foundation. The critics, however, argued that

Wilson had no evidence and that his statements supported a biological de-

terminist view of humans. For them, such a view implied that social in-

equality was “in our genes,” which would make social measures to diminish

inequality futile.

 

Almost makes me want to read the original book, but surely something newer on sociobiology has come out in the last 38 years?

 

 

But what Wilson wanted to present as exciting new findings his critics

declared to be “bad” and dangerous ideologically influenced science. And

among his critics could be found two of Wilson’s Harvard colleagues,

Richard Lewontin and Stephen J. Gould, who were members of the Socio-

biology Study Group, which had formed soon after Wilson’s book was an-

nounced as news on the front page of the New York Times in late May 1975.

This group organized many critical activities, starting with a letter in the

New York Review of Books signed by a number of Boston-area academics. The

high point of criticism was a sociobiology symposium at the 1978 meeting

of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washing-

ton, DC, where a group of activists (from the antiracist group Committee

Against Racism) chanted “Racist Wilson, you can’t hide, we charge you

with genocide!” whereupon two of them poured a pitcher of ice water on

Wilson’s neck, shouting, “Wilson, you are all wet!”

 

wtf

 

 

In 1975 the critics benefited from the political climate in which bio-

logical explanations of humans were taboo. This was a time when the lib-

eral credo reigned. There was the spirit of the post–World War II UNESCO

declaration stating that no evidence for racial differences existed, and the

general agreement to restrict genetic explanations of humans to the field of

medicine. This was also the time of postwar “environmentalism” (or, rather,

culturalism); people like Margaret Mead in anthropology and B. F. Skinner

in psychology were still held in high regard. And just before the sociobiology

debate, as a warning for all, there had been the controversy about IQ around

psychologist Arthur Jensen’s (1969) suggestion that the 15-point difference

in measured IQ between whites and blacks could have a genetic explana-

tion. Wilson had actually been careful with IQ and race in his book, and even

covered his back by citing Lewontin’s (1972) discovery that variation be-

tween populations (races) is much smaller than variation within a popula-

tion (race), a point that was widely regarded as undermining the usefulness

of race as a biological concept. But for the critics, that was not enough. What

mattered to them was the fact that Wilson had dared discuss biological un-

derpinnings for human behavior at all. This is why he had to be forcefully

denounced as a “bad” scientist, both morally and scientifically.

 

In 1975 many believed the critics when it came to Wilson’s political

motives. Very few ever read his book or asked about his actual agenda—or,

for that matter, about the critics’ agenda.

 

The treatment of the various IQ researchers is also worth reading about. I refer to Nyborg, Helmuth. “The greatest collective scientific fraud of the 20th century: The demolition of differential psychology and eugenics.” Mankind Quarterly, Spring Issue (2011).

www.helmuthnyborg.dk/Global-Witch-Hunt/Collective%20Fraud%20Publication_MQLI3Nyborg.pdf

 

 

The members of Science for the People were genuinely convinced that so-

ciobiology was, indeed, evil. (Of course, for academic activists, the fight

against sociobiology was also a welcome cause to rally around after the IQ

controversy.) The working logic of the critics is worth examining more

closely. It involved a type of “cognitive coupling” between three things: bad

science, ideological influences, and bad consequences. Moreover, there was

a clear connection between the critics’ criticism of sociobiology and their

conception that “bad,” and only “bad,” science would be socially abused.

 

What, then, was “bad” science? It turned out to be the kind of science

that the critics disliked: sociobiology, behavioral genetics, IQ research. Bad

science was never the kind of science that the critics did themselves in their

own labs. Bad science was science that involved working with models and

statistics of various sorts, not science at the molecular, reductionist level.

For many critics, the molecular level was where the “real” truth lay. Mod-

eling would never really yield reliable, serious science—only objective-

seeming, dangerous pseudoscience. This was Lewontin’s (1975a) position.

As Lewontin had already declared about those who studied cognitive traits,

they “could not” be interested in genuine science, because real science had

to do with the molecular level. Therefore they “must” be pursuing their re-

search for ideological reasons—which could also explain the “shoddiness” of

their science (Lewontin, 1975b).

 

 

Other evolutionary psychologists have made similar statements (see

Dennett, 1995, p. 537; Daly and Wilson, 1988, p. 12). Not only do evolu-

tionary psychologists acknowledge the existence of by-products and noise;

they also explicitly test by-product hypotheses (e.g., Kurzban, Tooby, &

Cosmides, 2001; Cosmides & Tooby, 1992). In addition, they acknowledge

that adaptationist claims must be backed by evidence: “To show that an or-

ganism has cognitive procedures that are adaptations . . . one must also

show that their design features are not more parsimoniously explained as

by-products” (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992, p. 180).

 

Ironically, in the same volume of essays in which Gould and Rose’s

comments appear (Rose & Rose, 2000), Fausto-Sterling makes exactly the

reverse criticism. She takes issue with Don Symons’s (1979) speculation that

the female orgasm might be a by-product rather than an adaptation (Fausto-

Sterling, 2000, p. 211), existing only because of the male orgasm, with the

design “carried over” to the other sex. Whichever view proves to be correct,

Fausto-Sterling here seems guilty of precisely the sins of which evolution-

ary psychologists stand accused, while Symons is as pluralistic as Gould

could ask.

 

Ironic indeed.

 

 

Elsewhere, however, it is clear that parents do sometimes neglect,

abuse, and even abandon their children (see Hrdy, 1999 for many exam-

ples). Often, one sex of offspring is more likely to be neglected, abused, or

even killed than the other. Female infanticide is the most common pattern

(see Dickemann, 1979b for an evolutionary analysis), but male-biased in-

fanticide has also been reported (e.g., among the Ayoreo of Bolivia by

Bugos & McCarthy, 1984). Much of my own research has focused on a pat-

tern of daughter favoritism among the Mukogodo of Kenya, an impover-

ished and low-status group of Maasai-speaking pastoralists (Cronk, 1989,

1991b, 2000). Although there is absolutely no evidence that the Mukogodo

abuse their children or have ever practiced infanticide, I have documented

in a variety of ways a broad tendency on the part of Mukogodo parents to

favor their daughters over their sons. For example, Mukogodo mothers and

other caregivers tend to hold infant girls more often than infant boys and to

remain closer to them when not holding them. In addition, girls are nursed

longer and more frequently and are more likely to be taken for medical care

than boys. The results of this favoritism include better growth performance

by Mukogodo girls than boys (measured as height-for-age, weight-for-age,

and weight-for-height). Survivorship among young girls is so much better

than among boys that the sex ratio of children ages 0–4 years is 67 boys to

every 100 girls.

 

A number of explanations for this daughter favoritism are possible. For

example, it might be that Mukogodo parents favor their daughters because

of the bridewealth payments, usually consisting of several head of cattle and

some sheep and goats, that they attract. However, there is no correlation

between how many daughters a man has married off and either his herd

size, the number of wives that he himself is subsequently able to marry, or

the number of wives that his sons are subsequently able to marry. Further-

more, although all of the groups surrounding the Mukogodo also demand

bridewealth payments, they show no signs of daughter favoritism. A better

explanation is that the Mukogodo are responding to the relatively good

prospects of their daughters compared to their sons. Mukogodo women vir-

tually all get married, often to wealthy men from neighboring ethnic

groups. Mukogodo men, on the other hand, often have a hard time accu-

mulating the necessary bridewealth and frequently must delay marriage

until middle age or forgo marriage entirely because of their general poverty

and low ethnic status.

 

The Mukogodo pattern of daughter favoritism fits predictions made

by evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers and mathematician Dan Willard

(1973). They noted that if the reproductive prospects of male and female

offspring differ in a way that is predictable from the parents’ condition dur-

ing the time of investment, natural selection would favor parents who invest

more heavily in that sex with the better reproductive prospects. Because in

many species the variance in reproductive success is greater for males than

for females, the conditions faced by an individual during development will

typically have a greater impact on the reproductive success of males than

females. The net result is often that males reared when conditions are good

will outreproduce their sisters, while females reared when conditions are

bad will outreproduce their brothers. The Mukogodo appear to be in the

latter situation: Due to their poverty and low status, girls’ prospects are

much better than boys’, and it makes sense for Mukogodo parents to favor

their daughters. Although this pattern of daughter favoritism increases

Mukogodo parents’ numbers of grandchildren, this is not simply a demon-

stration of the common folk wisdom that people like to have many grand-

children. In two surveys of Mukogodo women’s reproductive goals and

preferences, I have found that they express a bias in favor of sons, not daugh-

ters, and Mukogodo parents appear to be entirely unaware of the daughter

favoritism in their behavior. Mukogodo daughter favoritism seems to be not

a conscious strategy for enhancing one’s number of grandoffspring but,

rather, a deeply rooted evolved predisposition shared by a wide variety of

species that is triggered by specific environmental circumstances. This

demonstrates the value of an evolutionary approach in identifying circum-

stances that lead to patterns of child neglect of which even the parents them-

selves may not be aware.

 

Interesting case study.

 

 

There is no single biosocial approach to the study of human behavior any more than there is a single environmental approach. David Buss (1990) identifies three general biosocial approaches to the study of human behav- ior: evolutionary, behavior genetic, and physiological. Although they em- ploy different theories and methods, work with different units of analysis, and invoke different levels of causation, they are not the contradictory stew we find when we survey the plethora of strictly environmental theories in sociology. Besides having in common the tremendous potential to illumi- nate human nature, biosocial approaches are vertically integrated; i.e., their principles are conceptually consistent across all three levels of analy- sis. Although I concentrate on evolutionary psychology, all biosocial ap- proaches are so “environment-friendly” that I am tempted to call them “biologically-informed environmental approaches.” Evolutionary psycho- logy will not (and cannot) cannibalize the social sciences. We will always need the social sciences, Barkow (1992, p. 635) assures us, but he also re- minds us that “psychology underlies culture and society, and biological evo- lution underlies psychology.” That is all I am asking criminologists to accept.

Possibly too much for them to accept.

Few social scientists balk at the notion that human anatomy and physiology are products of evolution. We observe some aspect of complex morphology and infer that it was selected over alternate designs because it best served some particular function that proved useful in assisting the proliferation of its owners’ genes. Although there is no other scientifically viable explana- tion for the origin of basic behavioral design, most social scientists probably dismiss the idea of human behavioral patterns as products of the same nat- ural process. If we accept the notion that evolution shaped our minds and our behavior, we have to accept that many of our less admirable traits such as deception, cheating, and violence owe their present existence to the fact that they were useful to the reproductive success (the total number of an or- ganism’s descendants, and thus its genes) of our distant ancestors, as were more positive traits such as altruism, nurturance, and love.

Can’t get the one without the other. So it is for the qualities that make men aggressive. Make make useful combatants, useful researchers and so on, but also criminals. It is the price society pays.

How can criminal behavior, including such heterogeneous acts as murder, theft, rape, and assault, be conceived of as an evolved adaptation when it is clearly maladaptive in modern environments? First, because a behavior is currently maladaptive does not mean that mechanisms underlying it are not evolved adaptations (designed by natural selection to solve some environmental problem). Our modern environments are so different in many re- spects from the environments our species evolved in that traits and behav- iors selected for their adaptive value then may not be adaptive at all today. Conversely, traits and behaviors that appear to be adaptive today may not have a history of natural selection (Barkow, 1984; Daly, 1996; Mealey, 1995). An adaptation is a current feature with a past; a feature that is cur- rently adaptive may or may not have a future. Second, the specifics of crim- inal behavior (or of any other social behavior for that matter) are not themselves adaptations: “Genes do not code themselves for jimmying a lock or stealing a car. . . . The genome does not waste precious DNA encoding the specifics” (Rowe, 1996, p. 285).

The author is right, but has anyone tested whether it actually is adaptive today as well? Do criminals have more kids than non-criminals? That seems quite likely! Which would mean that we are actually breeding for more criminal behavior!

How do cheats manage to continue to follow their strategy given how grudgers respond to them when they are unmasked? In computer simula- tions of interactions between populations of cheats, suckers, and grudgers, cheats are always driven to extinction, as evolutionary theory would predict (Raine, 1993; Allman, 1994). The problem with such simulations is that players are constrained to operate within the same environment in which their reputations quickly become known. In the real world, cheats can move from location to location meeting and cheating a series of grudgers who are susceptible to one-time deception. This is exactly what we observe among the more psychopathic criminals. They move from place to place, job to job, and relationship to relationship, leaving a trail of misery behind them before their reputation catches up to them (Hare, 1993; Lykken, 1995). In mod- ern societies, cheats are much more likely to prosper in large cities than in small traditional communities, where the threat of exposure and retaliation is great (Ellis & Walsh, 1997; Machalek & Cohen, 1991; Mealey, 1995).

Good observation about the ‘psychopaths’ and cheaters. We really are setting up a good environment for cheaters. Interesting. The lack of ability to delete things from the internet will however counter this to some degree.

It is a central tenet of evolutionary theory that the human brain evolved in the context of overwhelming concerns for resource and mate acquisition. When food, territory, and mates are plentiful, pursuing them violently is an unnecessary waste of energy involving the risk of serious injury or death. When resources become scarce, however, acquiring them any way one can may become worth the risk (Barkow, 1989). Among our ancestral males, those who were most successful in acquiring resources gained rank and sta- tus and, thereby, access to a disproportionate number of females. As Daly and Wilson (1988a, p. 132) have remarked: “Homo sapiens is very clearly a creature for whom differential social status has consistently been associated with variations in reproductive success.” Today status is not necessarily as- sociated with aggression and violence (typically, quite the opposite today in most modern societies), but it almost certainly was more so in our ancestral environments (Chagnon, 1996; Wrangham & Peterson, 1998). As the species moved from a nomadic lifestyle to civilization, it was typically the most successful warriors that became a nation’s aristocracy (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). Because females prefer males with rank and status, genes inclining males to aggressively pursue their interests (which sometimes meant becoming violent) enjoyed greater representation in subsequent gen- erations. From the evolutionary point of view, violence is something human males (as well as males in numerous other species) are designed by nature to do. Wherever we look in the world, males are far more likely than fe- males to be both the victims and the perpetrators of all kinds of violent acts (Badcock, 2000; Barak, 1998; Campbell, 1999).

Actually a study found that being bullied predicts lack of dating. Being bullied is clearly a sign of low status. So, we should expect high status to predict dating.

www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP10253270.pdf

Early hominids (Australopithecus anemensis and afarenis) were also 50% to 100% larger than females (Geary, 2000). The low degree of sexual di- morphism among modern Homo sapiens (males are only about 10% larger than females, on average) indicates an evolutionary shift from violent male competition for mates to a more monogamous mating system and an in- crease in paternal investment (Plavcan & van Schaik, 1997). However, there is evidence in the archeological literature indicating that homicide was much more common in evolutionary environments than it is today (Edgerton, 1992). In cultures where polygyny and low paternal investment still exist, we find homicide rates greatly exceeding those of any modern society. The Agta have a rate of 326 per 100,000, and the Yanomamo one of 166 per 100,000 (Ellis & Walsh, 2000, p. 71). Chagnon (1996) also presents data showing that homicide rates in many of today’s pre-state societies are many times greater than in any modern industrial society. Indeed, because the Yanomamo practice polygyny, homicide translates directly into reproduc- tive success; males who have killed the most in intervillage warfare (and are thus the most respected) have about three times as many wives and chil- dren than those who have killed least or not at all (Chagnon, 1988).

They must be very war like, breeding for such behavior for many years.

We can accept without question that forced copulation increases fitness among nonhuman animals, but may find it distasteful to apply similar rea- soning to humans. If we claim that rape (or any other violent behavior) is a product of natural selection, aren’t we justifying it and implying that it is morally acceptable? No, we are not; and to claim that we are is to commit the naturalistic fallacy, the confusion of is with ought.Nature simply is, what ought to be is a moral judgment, and to say that forced copulation is natural mammalian behavior no more constitutes moral approval than to claim that we approve of disease and death because we call these unwelcome events natural also. Rape in a modern context is a maladaptive consequence of a mating strategy that may have been adaptive in the environments in which our species evolved; it is a morally reprehensible crime that requires strong preventative legal sanctions. Calling something “natural” does not dignify it or place it beyond the power of culture to modify, as manifestly it is not.

Like with their previous comments, perhaps whatever makes males rape is actually still adaptive. One would have to check to see if rapists have more children than non-rapists. Probably need to rely on anonymous surveys, since not all rapists are actually in prison (they might have been).

A third predictor of a person’s reproductive strategy according to AAT (but not considered a factor in other evolutionary theories of crime) is in- telligence, with those of relatively high intelligence generally opting for par- enting effort and those of relatively low intelligence generally opting for mating effort. It is not assumed that low intelligence is intrinsically antiso- cial (or high intelligence intrinsically prosocial, for that matter), only that it makes the procurement of resources needed to advertise parental effort to prospective females problematic. Low intelligence also makes it difficult to learn and appreciate the moral norms of society. Thus, a strategy emphasiz- ing mating effort is similar to criminal behavior in that direct and immedi- ate methods are used to procure resources illegitimately; little thought is given to the consequences either to the self or to the victim (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Conversely, parenting effort is embedded in a prosocial lifestyle in which resource procurement relies on the patient and intelligent accumulation of social and occupational skills that are attractive to females. Thus, reproductive strategies mirror antisocial/prosocial behavior in terms of emphases on immediate versus delayed gratification.

This is a question open to testing, and it has been. g is a stronger (negative) predictor of crime than is income, so the effect of g is not completely mediated by resources measured by income.

There is also another question to test. It is known that there is a crime hotspot in IQ. From Jensen 1998:

The above-mentioned correlation between crime and IQ is clearly nonlinear. That is, the rate of serious crimes against persons, such as robbery, assault, rape, and homicide, is very low and nearly constant across IQ levels above IQ 100, but below IQ 100 the rate rises steeply, and then declines rapidly below IQ 70. The peak crime rate occurs in the IQ range from 75 to 90, with the highest rate for violent crime in the IQ range from 80 to 90. The vast majority of both petty crimes and violent crimes are committed by the segment of the population ranging from IQ 60 to 100. (So-called white-collar criminals and leaders of organized crime generally have IQs above 100.) These findings apply to both males and females, although the rate for most types of antisocial behavior is much lower for females, especially violent crime.

On the evolutionary account, one would expect the hotspot to move when the population average moves. This is testable. In countries with all blacks in SS Africa, is the crime also committed by people 10 to 30 below the average?

National IQ’s predict national crime rates too, which favors g theory. Here’s the table from Lynn 2012:

[TABLE 9.1]

The major concern of feminist criminology has long been to explain the uni- versal fact that women are far less likely than men to involve themselves in criminal activity (Price & Sokoloff, 1995, p. 3). Whenever and wherever records have been kept, it has been found that males commit the over- whelming proportion of criminal offenses, and the more serious and violent the offense, the more males dominate in its commission (Campbell, 1999). This fact is not in dispute, although explanations of it are. The traditional sociological view of gender differences in crime and other forms of deviant behavior is that they are products of differential socialization: that men are socialized to be aggressive, ambitious, and dominant, women to be nurtur- ing and passive; and that women will be as antisocial and criminal as men with female emancipation. The majority of studies relating to this issue, however, actually support the opposite of the emancipation hypothesis: that is, as the trend toward gender equality has increased, females have tended to commit fewer rather than more crimes relative to males (Ellis & Walsh, 2000, p. 388).

This makes me wonder why, in their view, that they would WANT to ‘emancipate’ women more, if the outcome is that women become just as violent as men! Are feminists inadvertently promoting more violence?

Jerome Barkow asks us to “imagine evolutionary biology and population genetics as one island continent, and the social-behavioral sciences as an- other. Now is the time for ending false dichotomies and for emphasizing continuities. Now is the time to position the social-behavioral sciences in their proper place as a seamless continuation of biology” (1989, p. 18). To become vertically integrated in the way envisioned does not mean that crim- inologists need to become expert evolutionary psychologists, behavior ge- neticists, endocrinologists, or neuroscientists in order to study crime and criminality. They must at least be students of those sciences, however, if they are to develop theories that maintain vertical consistency with them. If they do not they will become irrelevant, as Alice Rossi (1984) warned bio- logically ignorant sex-role researchers in her 1983 presidential address to the American Sociological Association. In this “decade of the brain” and in the age of the Human Genome and Human Genetic Diversity Projects, biolog- ical data relevant to understanding criminal behavior are pouring in at a re- markable rate. Criminologists have an unprecedented opportunity to join other scientists in interdisciplinary analyses of criminal behavior with these data. If criminologists pass up this opportunity, we can be sure that the torch will be passed to other disciplines—the study of criminality is too important to remain mired in premodern science.

-

Interesting reading on male adult male nonadult sexual interactions in a broad perspective

Abstract
Blanchardetal. (2009)demonstratedthathebephiliais
a genuine sexual preference, but then proposed,without argument
or evidence, that it should be designated as amental disorder in the
DSM-5.Aseries ofLetters-to-the-Editor criticized this proposal as
a non sequitur. Blanchard (2009), in rebuttal, reaffirmed his posi-
tion, butwithout adequately addressing some central criticisms. In
thisarticle,weexaminehebephilia-as-disorder infulldetail.Unlike
Blanchardetal.,wediscussdefinitionsofmentaldisorder,examine
extensive evidence from a broad range of sources, and consider
alternative (i.e.,non-pathological) explanations forhebephilia.We
employedWakefield’s (1992b) harmful dysfunction approach to
disorder, which holds that a condition only counts as a disorder
when it is a failure of a naturally selectedmechanismto function as
designed, which is harmful to the individual in the current envi-
ronment. We also considered a harmful-for-others approach to
disorder (Bru ¨lde, 2007). Examination of historical, cross-cultural,
sociological, cross-species, non-clinical empirical, and evolution-
ary evidence and perspectives indicated that hebephilic interest is
an evolved capacity and hebephilic preference an expectable dis-
tributional variant, both of whichwere adaptively neutral or func-
tional, not dysfunctional, in earlier human environments. Hebe-
philia’s conflict with modern society makes it an evolutionary
mismatch,notagenuinedisorder.Thoughitshouldnotbeclassified
as a disorder, it could be entered in theDSM’s5-code section, used
for non-disordered conditions that create significant problems in
present-day society.
Keywords Hebephilia Mental disorder Harmful dysfunction  DSM-5