Mass Shooting in Plymouth UK.

[Dwarvenhobble]

Sorry for triple post forum was being weird

Also, let me illustrate to you the double edged sword of sexual essentialism.

If you are male, and you have a "male brain", and Harvey Weinstein is male and also has a "male brain", then you have the same brain. If your brain determines how you think and behave, then you must think and behave in the same way as Harvey Weinstein. If Harvey Weinstein's brain made him a sex offender, then your brain is also the brain of a sex offender.

There are actually a group of feminists who think this way. Fortunately for you, they spend most of their time hating trans people and are mostly too busy to think about cis men like you, but make no mistake, if the way men behave is caused by having a "male brain", then that is not a good thing. It's not a flattering characterization, and it doesn't really justify treating men equally or with any kind of respect. If anything, it justifies the idea that men have far too much power and freedom, and that this should be radically curtailed for the good of humanity.

Actually that would come down more to Piaget and Vygotsky learning theories. Or to put it another way we could both have the same computer but be running very different software on it.

So far the affinity for sexual assault based on brain structure isn't shown to be a thing no matter how much some branches of feminism argue all men are rapist and need constant special lessons in not raping people. Mostly it's an affinity towards certain tasks to go back to the computer analogy like how it is or was seen that AMD cards graphics were better for video rendering while Nvidia graphics cards were seen as better for raw gaming power neither of which really makes a difference to sending something to the print queue or other tasks.

 

[Agema]

It doesn't matter how alike the sexes are when they're still in the cradle. When people grow up the illusion of equality is broken, and right now young men get the short end of the stick. As I mentioned before being a trad con man is hard work, but even if that hard work is valuable enough to reach one's family goals, the end result must be a synthesis of some sort. Also don't get me wrong, incels are totally wrong with the blackpill thing (that only looks matter). Yet after drawing that short stick the way up is through competition with other men and some inevitably fail. Obviously nobody listens to the failed ones if they want a change in culture -- that's just a bunch of losers whining -- and the successful can carry on worry free maybe selling self-help guides along the way.

Sure, there needs to be a new messaging for men and women (and boys and girls) about the role of men in society, which is arguably at present underformed.

Unfortunately, the people making most noise about how unfair society is for men are almost always the same people banging on about traditional gender roles. They only have one real answer, which is to revert society to the 1960s, to which I reply that the 1960s are gone a long time ago: get over it. And prod a little, and you'll get a series of diatribes about feminists, single mothers, pretty women who flaunt their bodies to get ahead, women complaining about sexual assault and harassment, women having jobs, women having children, and you can see the pattern: they're a bunch of fucking misogynists. That's exactly why they want a society back in the old days where a man earnt the money and controlled the household and could slap his wife when she got upset or give her a good, thorough legal raping if he needed some sexual release and she would have rather not due to her headache.

These people are not constructive. They don't want to build a new vision for men to thrive in, as far as they're concerned female empowerment was opening Pandora's Box and the best thing to do is to shove women back in that box and close the lid forever. This idea of "male brains" and thus biological destiny is a central plank to defend it: implicitly, we've defied nature itself by letting women be CEOs and judges and prime ministers, so we are reaping the incel whirlwind.

Incels are really just an extreme version of this. They're not particularly ugly, or poor, or hopeless at core. They are people who think they're entitled to live the misogynist dream with a submissive and compliant sex doll "Stacy" (I think the term is) who will service their every need. Quite likely some of them are socially maladroit, but they could learn to get better there too. I have said before and I say again, you can see some of the dregs of male humankind pulling women, and your average incel probably could too: except they think they deserve the hawt cheerleader and skip the ones they might pull. They are actively recruited or "groomed" by prior bitter misogynists to join the stupid, self-defeating cult, and from there some of these confused, frustrated and lonely guys get sucked into by the sense of community and collapse into the misogyny death spiral. Rather than being taught to improve and that life is hard, and they need to take responsibility, limit their expectations and so on, they're told they're hopeless and it will never get better and it's everyone else's fault but theirs. Put it like that, you may as well kill a load of them in the process of suiciding. That'll show them how important you were.

And yes, society can certainly have a more useful role helping people all along from birth and helping them see all manner of worth in themselves rather than dismissing them as neckbeards. But perhaps it starts at not saying stupid stuff like "Men are like this, women are like that, and if you're not that the masculine "this", you're a fucking loser, buddy."

 

[McElroy]

Unfortunately, the people making most noise about how unfair society is for men are almost always the same people banging on about traditional gender roles.

These people are not constructive. They don't want to build a new vision for men to thrive in

For now I'd agree, but this of course draws a parallel to the women in video games discussion: feminists must admit the problem and they must admit there is something they can do too. And as said here they do admit there is a problem they just think it's men who should fix it. Most women aren't that into feminism so that's not where to look for a synthesis. I've watched some of the conversations/debates about this topic in Steven "Destiny" Bonnell's stream and YT but even after all that the issues are difficult. Social media, dating apps, fewer economic opportunities for men and different age demographics mingling together are strongly in there.

Now we agree incels are disastrous, but I disagree a bit here:

Quite likely some of them are socially maladroit, but they could learn to get better there too. I have said before and I say again, you can see some of the dregs of male humankind pulling women, and your average incel probably could too: except they think they deserve the hawt cheerleader and skip the ones they might pull.

Incels are fucked in the head, but before that I believe they were simple failures. The inevitable ones perhaps. The hot submissive slut they say they deserve wasn't in their minds when they tried to get dates and relationships initially. It's unlikely they were so dumb that they only went for the 10/10s. Lowering one's standards as low as possible and trying to pull from the garbage is not the way to go. It won't solve a thing because you'd be fooling yourself hard.

being taught to improve and that life is hard, and they need to take responsibility, limit their expectations and so on

The trad con answer. The liberal one too. Compete, but you can still lose out. For now us Westerners can still get a waitress from South East Asia relatively easily.

But perhaps it starts at not saying stupid stuff like "Men are like this, women are like that, and if you're not that the masculine "this", you're a fucking loser, buddy."

Does not matter. We share the same reality. And at some point growing up it'll hit ya (though as a kid we pick up pretty much everything already). Maybe you succeed and just see that some dudes stay single, maybe the other way around.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Sure, there needs to be a new messaging for men and women (and boys and girls) about the role of men in society, which is arguably at present underformed.

Unfortunately, the people making most noise about how unfair society is for men are almost always the same people banging on about traditional gender roles. They only have one real answer, which is to revert society to the 1960s, to which I reply that the 1960s are gone a long time ago: get over it. And prod a little, and you'll get a series of diatribes about feminists, single mothers, pretty women who flaunt their bodies to get ahead, women complaining about sexual assault and harassment, women having jobs, women having children, and you can see the pattern: they're a bunch of fucking misogynists. That's exactly why they want a society back in the old days where a man earnt the money and controlled the household and could slap his wife when she got upset or give her a good, thorough legal raping if he needed some sexual release and she would have rather not due to her headache.

These people are not constructive. They don't want to build a new vision for men to thrive in, as far as they're concerned female empowerment was opening Pandora's Box and the best thing to do is to shove women back in that box and close the lid forever. This idea of "male brains" and thus biological destiny is a central plank to defend it: implicitly, we've defied nature itself by letting women be CEOs and judges and prime ministers, so we are reaping the incel whirlwind.

Incels are really just an extreme version of this. They're not particularly ugly, or poor, or hopeless at core. They are people who think they're entitled to live the misogynist dream with a submissive and compliant sex doll "Stacy" (I think the term is) who will service their every need. Quite likely some of them are socially maladroit, but they could learn to get better there too. I have said before and I say again, you can see some of the dregs of male humankind pulling women, and your average incel probably could too: except they think they deserve the hawt cheerleader and skip the ones they might pull. They are actively recruited or "groomed" by prior bitter misogynists to join the stupid, self-defeating cult, and from there some of these confused, frustrated and lonely guys get sucked into by the sense of community and collapse into the misogyny death spiral. Rather than being taught to improve and that life is hard, and they need to take responsibility, limit their expectations and so on, they're told they're hopeless and it will never get better and it's everyone else's fault but theirs. Put it like that, you may as well kill a load of them in the process of suiciding. That'll show them how important you were.

And yes, society can certainly have a more useful role helping people all along from birth and helping them see all manner of worth in themselves rather than dismissing them as neckbeards. But perhaps it starts at not saying stupid stuff like "Men are like this, women are like that, and if you're not that the masculine "this", you're a fucking loser, buddy."

The issue is neither does the other side.

Look I'll happily mock the "Men should be out in the yard building a fridge" attitude but I'm not a fan of the other side where it tends to be guys on about "How men must be super empathic and never aggressive or competitive and work to unify the world with the Earthmother" or whatever while they're also some of the most passive aggressive people you'll likely meet.

There's two sides laying out two entirely different standards for what a man must be to be good and neither of them is seemingly ok for the other to exist.

Back when I was in a lab was it awful sexism that meant I went down and filled up the two 10 litre tanks for distilled water than climbed back up the stairs with them? No I did it because the lab needed distilled water and there was only like me and 2 other guys who could do it without that much trouble and I was the the only one in and even back then was basically Shrek. All the girls in the lab (and also most of the rest of the guys) were all under 5'7 and built like beanpoles so it made sense I went to do it because it's something I'm more capable of. Some would claim I was being a Toxic man but not having the women show they can do it but why should they have to when it's easier for me to do? Just as it was easier for me to ask them to help me with more delicate lab stuff like attempting to put the small parts back together for certain bits of lab kit.

Guys want to feel that they're not monsters and sometimes have a purpose and are doing good not somehow failing to live up to some standards because bad things still happen in the world.

It's a weird state of the world because while Macho men are bad because impossible standards etc etc. Guys are still being expected to be the ones to act and be the protectors as such. I've brought this up before but you have to remember Joss Whedon and Harvey Weinstein were being held up at one point as how modern men should be.

 

[Agema]

Lowering one's standards as low as possible and trying to pull from the garbage is not the way to go. It won't solve a thing because you'd be fooling yourself hard.

I disagree, and I know men, including a couple of friends, who did this (although "garbage" is unnecessarily harsh - let's say unfussy women looking for a one-night hook-up) precisely because it was a way to get experience and build confidence. This is practice: start easy and build up to more challenging. Combine it with a dinner date and practice social skills as well - chances are the man will have to pay, but he can consider it an investment in education.

Frankly, even visiting a prostitute might help, if just to demystify sex and introduce the basics.

Incels are fucked in the head, but before that I believe they were simple failures. The inevitable ones perhaps. The hot submissive slut they say they deserve wasn't in their minds when they tried to get dates and relationships initially.

I suspect most incels start by lacking the confidence to approach any girl at all, to the extent they don't even have any significant female friends - and I suspect much of that comes from an unhealthy attitude to women.

The trad con answer. The liberal one too.

It is just the answer, for anyone. It's being an adult. You learn you don't get always what you want, and you need to realign your ambitions: just like that wish to be an astronaut when you were 5 isn't going to come true either.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Well so far we've not actually found an example of a non Trans individual who has a brain that shows the structural differences details in Dr Verma's research and to be clear NO it's not about grey matter density because that's the other research everyone brings up.

You keep talking about a Dr Verma, and I continue to find no evidence of such a person even existing.

The fact that you've been going on about this one person (who, if they exist at all, has made so little impact that even with academic library access I can find no information to support that they exist at all) for literally years now, if anything, only illustrates how incredibly little you actually have to go on. If this is a demonstrable scientific fact, where are the hundreds and hundreds of corroborating studies? Why isn't Dr Verma ranked among the biggest names in the entire history of the biological sciences for the incredible, ground breaking study they've apparently made?

Is Dr Verma real? Is Dr Verma in the room with us right now?

Well I'd suggest you watch the rest of the video including the research of Dr Verma which still hasn't been shown to be wrong.

Where?

Where is Dr Verma. Give me a timestamp.

Why the fuck would you make me sit through Simon Baron Cohen peddling his absolute garbage musings about autism. Like, a lot of this stuff I can just laugh at, it's just the weird insecurities of neurotic cis people. But when you start outright misrepresenting autism, a condition which is very, very poorly understood in the general populace, you are actually causing real harm and that makes me actually kind of mad. Again, is this the best you can do? Is this the best you have?

Hans Asperger, the literal Nazi who personally sent disabled children to their deaths, realised that this understanding of autism was wrong and set out to correct it. Why the fuck are we still having to deal with it now?

In terms of the what it's meant to show well it's showing there are seemingly differences so old they might have existed since we left the trees ourselves and some of the preference stuff isn't socially constructed or if it is it was socially constructed from the time were were a society in that lived in the trees lol.

Okay, so why trucks and dolls?

Were there many trucks in the ancestral environment? Did male monkeys used to ride around on trucks so often that the ability to recognize toy trucks was selected for? How was the ability to recognize trucks sexually selected for? Did the female monkeys only mate with the monkeys with the biggest trucks?

It's a complete joke. It's so badly designed that you can't even tell what it's meant to be measuring, let alone what the point actually is. The most likely explanation is that the experiment exists only to make this absurd claim and grab some handy media attention, and if someone is so uninvested in the truth that they would make up an experiment purely in order to make a ridiculous claim, why should we trust their results?

You could have taken lab monkeys with limited human exposure, isolated them in a controlled environment and used abstract toys to measure their relative inclination towards various activities, but that wouldn't have gotten on TV would it.

So you're saying the BBC horizon documentary faked it all or didn't do the work to look into the experiments and research?

Clearly they didn't, because this is dogshit.

Just because you're a good journalist doesn't mean you're equipped to report on scientific topics. Horizon also reported Andrew Wakefield's claims about the MMR vaccine causing autism (god knows why they hate autistic people so much). Some of the people featured on this documentary do seem to be genuine, and I feel sorry for them having their complex researched boiled down into hur dur men like cars and women like barbies but this is why journalism isn't a good medium for scientific debate, and you shouldn't be using it as one.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

You keep talking about a Dr Verma, and I continue to find no evidence of such a person even existing.

The fact that you've been going on about this one person (who, if they exist at all, has made so little impact that even with academic library access I can find no information to support that they exist at all) for literally years now, if anything, only illustrates how incredibly little you actually have to go on. If this is a demonstrable scientific fact, where are the hundreds and hundreds of corroborating studies? Why isn't Dr Verma ranked among the biggest names in the entire history of the biological sciences for the incredible, ground breaking study they've apparently made?

Is Dr Verma real? Is Dr Verma in the room with us right now?

Department of Radiology
University of Pennsylvania
is where Doctor Verma presently operates from.

As for why the good doctor isn't ranked among the biggest names in biological sciences. Simple people don't want to accept the research out side of the specific niche field. It's not gained wide acceptance. It happens with a number of ideas in Science and can take time. even if it's right. for people to actually look into it and stop going "Nope not true not even worth looking into" based on their personal beliefs.

Hell even suggesting the idea of a Male vs Female brain is pretty damn controversial because as can be seen in this thread the suggestion that it helps bad people push their ideas.

Where?

Where is Dr Verma. Give me a timestamp.

About 29:13

Why the fuck would you make me sit through Simon Baron Cohen peddling his absolute garbage musings about autism. Like, a lot of this stuff I can just laugh at, it's just the weird insecurities of neurotic cis people. But when you start outright misrepresenting autism, a condition which is very, very poorly understood in the general populace, you are actually causing real harm and that makes me actually kind of mad. Again, is this the best you can do? Is this the best you have?

Hans Asperger, the literal Nazi who personally sent disabled children to their deaths, realised that this understanding of autism was wrong and set out to correct it. Why the fuck are we still having to deal with it now?

Well part of the documentary is also looking into the idea of if the differences are natural vs social constructs.

Okay, so why trucks and dolls?

Were there many trucks in the ancestral environment? Did male monkeys used to ride around on trucks so often that the ability to recognize toy trucks was selected for? How was the ability to recognize trucks sexually selected for? Did the female monkeys only mate with the monkeys with the biggest trucks?

It's a complete joke. It's so badly designed that you can't even tell what it's meant to be measuring, let alone what the point actually is. The most likely explanation is that the experiment exists only to make this absurd claim and grab some handy media attention, and if someone is so uninvested in the truth that they would make up an experiment purely in order to make a ridiculous claim, why should we trust their results?

You could have taken lab monkeys with limited human exposure, isolated them in a controlled environment and used abstract toys to measure their relative inclination towards various activities, but that wouldn't have gotten on TV would it.

Trucks vs Dolls = mechanical things vs replication of living things.
Why not use isolated lab monkeys well it's simple you need the monkeys to be living in a group / society structure so you'd need the lab to basically have a massive space for the monkeys to live in as a community. Having the monkeys isolated from the group living in cages isn't very natural is it?
Also the BBC documentary was just a basic recreation of the experiment which has been repeated multiple times already by others with other groups of monkeys.

Clearly they didn't, because this is dogshit.

Just because you're a good journalist doesn't mean you're equipped to report on scientific topics. Horizon also reported Andrew Wakefield's claims about the MMR vaccine causing autism (god knows why they hate autistic people so much). Some of the people featured on this documentary do seem to be genuine, and I feel sorry for them having their complex researched boiled down into hur dur men like cars and women like barbies but this is why journalism isn't a good medium for scientific debate, and you shouldn't be using it as one.

IS it dogshit because you disagree with it perhaps?
The two presenters of the show are actual scientists lol.
Also it's a 1 hour long documentary covering a lot of research I figured it was easier and better to post this than a flood of academic papers which people can look up themselves if they want to spent hours reading all the stuff in absolute depth.

 

[McElroy]

I disagree, and I know men, including a couple of friends, who did this (although "garbage" is unnecessarily harsh - let's say unfussy women looking for a one-night hook-up) precisely because it was a way to get experience and build confidence. This is practice: start easy and build up to more challenging. Combine it with a dinner date and practice social skills as well - chances are the man will have to pay, but he can consider it an investment in education. Frankly, even visiting a prostitute might help, if just to demystify sex and introduce the basics.

My point of view was with people that want a LTR, but alright, such transactional way of thinking relationships could at times be beneficial. It should start young though. The issue is that it doesn't come naturally, which brings us to what women could do... but do they want to? It seems it's better to vet through a lot of men instead of risking that he's just building up confidence to go for somebody prettier.

I suspect most incels start by lacking the confidence to approach any girl at all, to the extent they don't even have any significant female friends - and I suspect much of that comes from an unhealthy attitude to women.

I couldn't find specific statistics but we know men have fewer friendships and those are usually other dudes -> it's normal to have no female friends. I'm very biased on the matter, tbf.

It is just the answer, for anyone. It's being an adult. You learn you don't get always what you want, and you need to realign your ambitions.

All in all, like the previous times we've discussed this it's tough to reconcile the about 10 years in young adulthood where access to dating seems to depend on chance for men. Relating to this topic, it does contribute into the "battle of the sexes", because while you can laconically say "everyone should work on themselves" that work isn't equally cut out.

 

[Kwak]

Sex is a social skill. Demystify it, take out the risk of pregnancy and disease with medical science and basic responsibility, and it loses it's mystical power and becomes a nice way to interact with people you enjoy.

 

[Agema]

You keep talking about a Dr Verma, and I continue to find no evidence of such a person even existing.

FYI https://www.med.upenn.edu/sbia/rverma.html She appears to be a successful, if not exceptional, scientist.

If someone's trying to prove to you something is true based on a TV documentary they've seen rather than a broad grasp of the scientific literature, you know they're not talking serious science.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Sex is a social skill. Demystify it, take out the risk of pregnancy and disease with medical science and basic responsibility, and it loses it's mystical power and becomes a nice way to interact with people you enjoy.

In theory. Yes. Absolutely.

In practice. Sex isn't going to be something everyone can freely dive into unless people (especially but not exclusively men) learn to be nicer.

I'm merging a lot of my experiences and those of my friends here, but hooking up with a previously nice-seeming guy who then climbs on top of you, makes a few awkward thrusts while informing you that you do, in fact, love it. Slaps or chokes you without asking for consent because they saw it in a porno once. Ejaculates unceremoniously then immediately falls asleep leaving you to get dressed and awkwardly sneak out on your own isn't a fun time. It isn't a good experience. Men certainly don't have a monopoly on bad sex, of course, but they do seem to have something approaching a monopoly on not really caring whether anyone else has a good time. It's not really about being sexually proficient, you can have bad awkward sex and still have a great time, but that kind of requires the other person to care about your experience, and a lot of people - and again, a lot of men in particular, just don't.

It's not really surprising to me that women aren't really interested in casual sex, because on top of the dangers to their reputation and the respect of others, they're just not guaranteed to get anything from it.

And this is without even factoring in the very real dangers of putting yourself in a vulnerable situation with a man who is bigger and stronger than you (which for me, unfortunately, is a category which includes most of the men I wanna fuck).

 

[Kwak]

In theory. Yes. Absolutely.

In practice. Sex isn't going to be something everyone can freely dive into unless people (especially but not exclusively men) learn to be nicer.

I'm merging a lot of my experiences and those of my friends here, but hooking up with a previously nice-seeming guy who then climbs on top of you, makes a few awkward thrusts while informing you that you do, in fact, love it. Slaps or chokes you without asking for consent because they saw it in a porno once. Ejaculates unceremoniously then immediately falls asleep leaving you to get dressed and awkwardly sneak out on your own isn't a fun time. It isn't a good experience. Men certainly don't have a monopoly on bad sex, of course, but they do seem to have something approaching a monopoly on not really caring whether anyone else has a good time. It's not really about being sexually proficient, you can have bad awkward sex and still have a great time, but that kind of requires the other person to care about your experience, and a lot of people - and again, a lot of men in particular, just don't.

It's not really surprising to me that women aren't really interested in casual sex, because on top of the dangers to their reputation and the respect of others, they're just not guaranteed to get anything from it.

And this is without even factoring in the very real dangers of putting yourself in a vulnerable situation with a man who is bigger and stronger than you (which for me, unfortunately, is a category which includes most of the men I wanna fuck).

I think humour is an indispensable ingredient in what is really an admittedly hilarious process. And if you don't care how the other party enjoys the experience, seriously, just don't bother, sex is not for you and you should find another hobby,

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

FYI https://www.med.upenn.edu/sbia/rverma.html She appears to be a successful, if not exceptional, scientist.

If someone's trying to prove to you something is true based on a TV documentary they've seen rather than a broad grasp of the scientific literature, you know they're not talking serious science.

Fine you want me to post tones of the literature which then people can happily ignore like they've already ignored a 1 hour documentary covering it all in brief?

I find it pretty funny really how suddenly what was considered a reliable source and a good source of info in the form of the BBC Horizon Science documentary is now being seen as not reliable. Or that somehow it's not possible for people more interested to look it up because being honest here, It take a decent chuck of time to find links to all the papers and post them all vs 1 link to a documentary covering it and so often I've had similar arguments and spent the time posting all the studies only for them to be ignored anyway.

 

[Terminal Blue]

As for why the good doctor isn't ranked among the biggest names in biological sciences. Simple people don't want to accept the research out side of the specific niche field. It's not gained wide acceptance.

Why not?

This isn't really a niche field. It gets national media reporting and BBC Horizon specials. You think we get that kind of attention over in the social sciences and humanities? Again, it very much seems as if people DESPERATELY want to accept this kind of research, and to suppress criticism of this kind of research at literally any cost. So why isn't it dominating the scientific consensus in the same way it dominates the public imagination?

I mean, once again, now I've found it I don't even necessarily contest the results of this piece of research. I think its theoretical framework sounds a bit dodge, but not exceptionally so. I think you think it's saying a lot more than it is, and I think the Horizon documentary isn't helping because it's kind of implying that too.

Well part of the documentary is also looking into the idea of if the differences are natural vs social constructs.

So what does any of this have to do with autism?

Heck, the segment literally opens with "autism is 5 times more common in males than females". That's a lie. Autism is diagnosed about 4 times more often in males than females. Anyone who has any knowledge of autism and is being intellectually honest will tell you, truthfully, that they aren't entirely sure why this is, and that while there may be sex differences that make autism more common in males (which I don't think would be terribly controversial if they were found to exist) it's also likely to involve, to a large degree, biases within the referral and diagnostic process, as well as biases within the societal understanding of autism (which is why this kind of programme is spectacularly unhelpful and only makes the problem worse). Girls and women with autism tend to present differently. They may appear less symptomatic because they tend to develop social camouflaging earlier, and because there is not enough research into or understanding of the way autism presents in women the symptoms they do have tend to be missed.

The same is true of ADHD, which is also diagnosed 4 times more commonly in males than in females. ADHD is usually diagnosed in childhood, and usually in response to a child showing problem behaviours like poor impulse control or external hyperactivity, which are much more common in boys with ADHD because, again, girls tend to develop stronger social inhibitions against these kinds of behaviours, and people with ADHD can actually have very intense social inhibitions.

The "extreme male brain" theory is one that goes back to the very origins of autism research, and it's just bad. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, because once you've decided autism is a "male" condition you only look for it in males. Even some of the earliest researchers into autism ultimately released this mistake, and yet somehow we still have to live with it. The fact that autism diagnoses are overrepresented in males is probably not because autism is a quintessentially "male" condition, and it's certainly not because all men have autistic traits, it's because the diagnostic criteria and social stereotypes of these disorders are biased towards the way they tend to present in males (and it turns out, the behaviour of autistic males in some ways non-coincidentally resembles the behaviour of non-autistic males, who would have thought). Trying to frame autism as indicative of some kind of natural sexual difference, without clear evidence of such, is actively harmful to a lot of people who have it but who don't follow the typical male presentation, and who end up being overlooked, misdiagnosed, mistreated or stigmatized. As such, reporting it in this way crosses the line into actual irresponsibility.

Trucks vs Dolls = mechanical things vs replication of living things.

Again, were there many mechanical things, or representations of living things, in the ancestral environment of these monkeys? Are these monkeys even capable of understanding that a doll is a representation of a living thing? Do they have that kind of abstract, associative thinking in the first place, or is the doll just an object to them? If the monkeys can tell that the doll represents a living thing, can they also tell that it's not real?

You cannot get away from how absurd this is. If it was meant to be a representative example of a type of activity, why not design a toy that clearly demonstrates the activity that you're trying to measure instead of using toys that reflect human gender stereotypes? Again, there is literally nothing that can redeem this research design. It is flawed at the most basic level.

Why not use isolated lab monkeys well it's simple you need the monkeys to be living in a group / society structure so you'd need the lab to basically have a massive space for the monkeys to live in as a community. Having the monkeys isolated from the group living in cages isn't very natural is it?

Sure, but if you're defining natural behaviour as inherent, pre-programmed instinctive tendencies, then socially learned behaviour isn't natural either. I wasn't actually talking about isolating monkeys from forming a society, you can't do that nowadays because it's unbelievably cruel, but if you want to measure the natural sexual traits which monkeys supposedly possess, isolating them from other monkeys during the experiment would probably be quite important, that way their behaviour isn't influenced by social behaviour with other monkeys.

I mean, if you wanna get serious, let's go back to Harry Harlow and the Pit of Despair. Harry did use monkeys who had been isolated from social contact, and it was so awful that we don't do that any more. When the isolated female monkeys were impregnated (I'm not even touching how that happened) and gave birth, their natural nurturing instincts didn't kick in, they either ignored the baby monkeys or tore them apart. Sure, those monkeys were probably kind of deranged because they'd been raised in an incredibly harmful environment, but that's kind of my point. Speculating about the instinctive, biological tendencies of social animals, especially humans who are an order of magnitude more complex than any social animal, is kind of a doomed endeavour.

IS it dogshit because you disagree with it perhaps?

No, it actually is really, really bad.

The two presenters of the show are actual scientists lol.

And yet they somehow went along with this.

What can I say, sometimes scientists gotta get paid. That's why you should evaluate their evidence, and not your assessment of their personalities and credentials.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Why not?

This isn't really a niche field. It gets national media reporting and BBC Horizon specials. You think we get that kind of attention over in the social sciences and humanities? Again, it very much seems as if people DESPERATELY want to accept this kind of research, and to suppress criticism of this kind of research at literally any cost. So why isn't it dominating the scientific consensus in the same way it dominates the public imagination?

I mean, once again, now I've found it I don't even necessarily contest the results of this piece of research. I think its theoretical framework sounds a bit dodge, but not exceptionally so. I think you think it's saying a lot more than it is, and I think the Horizon documentary isn't helping because it's kind of implying that too.

Because it takes time for some ideas to be accepted even in Science.

You heard of Loop chain polymers? No?
Well they're a thing that's still trying to get acceptance and has been for 12 years or more now.

Carbon Nanotubes were first talked about in 1952 and it's only been in the 2000's that they've become anything big.

So what does any of this have to do with autism?

Heck, the segment literally opens with "autism is 5 times more common in males than females". That's a lie. Autism is diagnosed about 4 times more often in males than females. Anyone who has any knowledge of autism and is being intellectually honest will tell you, truthfully, that they aren't entirely sure why this is, and that while there may be sex differences that make autism more common in males (which I don't think would be terribly controversial if they were found to exist) it's also likely to involve, to a large degree, biases within the referral and diagnostic process, as well as biases within the societal understanding of autism (which is why this kind of programme is spectacularly unhelpful and only makes the problem worse). Girls and women with autism tend to present differently. They may appear less symptomatic because they tend to develop social camouflaging earlier, and because there is not enough research into or understanding of the way autism presents in women the symptoms they do have tend to be missed.

The same is true of ADHD, which is also diagnosed 4 times more commonly in males than in females. ADHD is usually diagnosed in childhood, and usually in response to a child showing problem behaviours like poor impulse control or external hyperactivity, which are much more common in boys with ADHD because, again, girls tend to develop stronger social inhibitions against these kinds of behaviours, and people with ADHD can actually have very intense social inhibitions.

The "extreme male brain" theory is one that goes back to the very origins of autism research, and it's just bad. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, because once you've decided autism is a "male" condition you only look for it in males. Even some of the earliest researchers into autism ultimately released this mistake, and yet somehow we still have to live with it. The fact that autism diagnoses are overrepresented in males is probably not because autism is a quintessentially "male" condition, and it's certainly not because all men have autistic traits, it's because the diagnostic criteria and social stereotypes of these disorders are biased towards the way they tend to present in males (and it turns out, the behaviour of autistic males in some ways non-coincidentally resembles the behaviour of non-autistic males, who would have thought). Trying to frame autism as indicative of some kind of natural sexual difference, without clear evidence of such, is actively harmful to a lot of people who have it but who don't follow the typical male presentation, and who end up being overlooked, misdiagnosed, mistreated or stigmatized. As such, reporting it in this way crosses the line into actual irresponsibility.

See I always thought (likely wrongly) Autism was likely connected to the issues over the Y Chromosome meaning that certain conditions are able to present in males more easily then females because there are not active counter genes as such. Kind of like the idea with XX you have two different documents and the stronger one is used and the weaker suppressed while in Males with XY you have one document and and a blank piece of paper so you have to do with the document even if it's not good. But that's a far off idea.

The Autism but presumably comes down to brain scans and activity monitoring of peoples brain to see certain stuff an mens brain activity shows one thing normally and Autistic peoples brains show that but more extreme or something.

Again, were there many mechanical things, or representations of living things, in the ancestral environment of these monkeys? Are these monkeys even capable of understanding that a doll is a representation of a living thing? Do they have that kind of abstract, associative thinking in the first place, or is the doll just an object to them? If the monkeys can tell that the doll represents a living thing, can they also tell that it's not real?

You cannot get away from how absurd this is. If it was meant to be a representative example of a type of activity, why not design a toy that clearly demonstrates the activity that you're trying to measure instead of using toys that reflect human gender stereotypes? Again, there is literally nothing that can redeem this research design. It is flawed at the most basic level.

Usage of tools and the likes to perform some mechanical tasks is mechanical stuff even if very basic.

As for Dolls well humans and presumably other animals can recognise facial structures etc and while I can't speak for how Monkeys see humans I do know that apparently Cats just see humans as bigger more incompetent cats. As for can they tell if it's not real? does it matter if they can or not?

If the research is so irredeemable why did the trend show up so clearly as it did?

Sure, but if you're defining natural behaviour as inherent, pre-programmed instinctive tendencies, then socially learned behaviour isn't natural either. I wasn't actually talking about isolating monkeys from forming a society, you can't do that nowadays because it's unbelievably cruel, but if you want to measure the natural sexual traits which monkeys supposedly possess, isolating them from other monkeys during the experiment would probably be quite important, that way their behaviour isn't influenced by social behaviour with other monkeys.

I mean, if you wanna get serious, let's go back to Harry Harlow and the Pit of Despair. Harry did use monkeys who had been isolated from social contact, and it was so awful that we don't do that any more. When the isolated female monkeys were impregnated (I'm not even touching how that happened) and gave birth, their natural nurturing instincts didn't kick in, they either ignored the baby monkeys or tore them apart. Sure, those monkeys were probably kind of deranged because they'd been raised in an incredibly harmful environment, but that's kind of my point. Speculating about the instinctive, biological tendencies of social animals, especially humans who are an order of magnitude more complex than any social animal, is kind of a doomed endeavour.

Ok so the issue with that is the behaviour is being seen in nature. It wasn't devised by some theoretical Academic monkey great thinkers about how society operates then put in places. It's clearly been past down throughout generations of monkeys so you're trying to change something that has been a part of human society longer than our ability to make fires. We learned it because it worked and it's how our species managed to survive. At what point do we say it's so inherent in nature that it's natural?

And yet they somehow went along with this.

What can I say, sometimes scientists gotta get paid. That's why you should evaluate their evidence, and not your assessment of their personalities and credentials.

Because the research does show just how it presents in nature in animals that are basically ancestrally linked to humanity

 

[Terminal Blue]

Because it takes time for some ideas to be accepted even in Science.

Not if the ideas are as good as you are claiming they are.

Carbon Nanotubes were first talked about in 1952 and it's only been in the 2000's that they've become anything big.

Carbon nanotubes have "become big" (there's a joke there somewhere) because it's become possible to practically apply them in areas that will potentially be incredibly useful in the near future. Not because people didn't believe in them.

See I always thought (likely wrongly) Autism was likely connected to the issues over the Y Chromosome meaning that certain conditions are able to present in males more easily then females because there are not active counter genes as such.

The heritability of autism is not well understood, but the features of autism strongly suggest that it is caused by a complex genome-wide range of factors and environmental factors rather than issues over a single gene or chromosome. Autism can suddenly appear in families with no history of autism. If an identical twin has autism, the other twin will not necessarily have it. Twins who are not identical are very unlikely to both have autism. Basically, autism is really weird and it's not entirely clear why yet.

The Autism but presumably comes down to brain scans and activity monitoring of peoples brain to see certain stuff an mens brain activity shows one thing normally and Autistic peoples brains show that but more extreme or something.

In Baron-Cohen's case, it's mostly based on the idea that autism may be partially influenced by prenatal androgens, which may be true. They seem to have some evidence of that. If true, it might go some way towards explaining why autism is more common in males than females, but I don't really know enough about foetal development and sex hormones to speculate there. The thing is, even if it does, we don't know how much, and again, this brings us back to the problem of conflating diagnostic rates with prevalance.

The problem is when you start making claims about autism, and the supposed effects of androgens, that aren't well evidenced or have conflicting evidence. For example, claiming that androgens are responsible for lower empathy or social motivation, and that both autistic people and men have naturally lower empathy and social motivation than neurotypical women. Anyone who has spent much time around autistic people will know that this is not always true. Autistic people often have excessive, painful amounts of empathy, and can be socially motivated enough to learn how to suppress their autistic traits. Some (not all) autistic people can struggle to recognize or understand other people's emotions, but that's typically because they struggle to understand or recognize their own emotions, not because they lack the capacity for empathy.

All in all, it's just a very archaic and insulting characterization of autism, and of men for that matter. While men do certainly tend to lack empathy and some men struggle with social motivation, it's important to remember that these are learned qualities. Much of what we call empathy is a skill you develop by practicing. Social motivation is something you can develop as and when you need it. Girls are taught from an incredibly young age that their social relationships with others are important, so it's not surprising they excel at these skills. That's not to say biology plays no role, but we can't actually know.

Usage of tools and the likes to perform some mechanical tasks is mechanical stuff even if very basic.

I'm not a zoologist and I can't be bothered to go look up those monkeys, but given that only a handful of monkey species are able to use tools, and none of them are capable of creating tools with moving parts, I'm pretty sceptical of that one. Again, if the point was to measure basic engagement with particular activities, you could have used abstract toys and thus eliminated the possibility of interference.

As for Dolls well humans and presumably other animals can recognise facial structures etc and while I can't speak for how Monkeys see humans I do know that apparently Cats just see humans as bigger more incompetent cats.

Wild or unsocialized cats do not see you as a bigger, more incompetent cat. They see you as a big, threatening animal. Tolerating humans is something cats have to learn, ideally when they are kittens. Cats are also pretty bad at recognizing human faces. Part of this is that cats rely on different senses, they are more likely to recognize your voice or scent, and since a doll has neither cats don't really care about them.

Dogs can recognize human faces and even read human emotions to an extent, but even then it's a learned skill and not something they instinctively do.

While it's reasonable to believe that monkeys who are fed and exposed to humans might learn to recognize human faces, it's very unlikely to be a natural behaviour. It's even less likely that they can recognize a smooth, cold, unscented plastic doll as a representation of a human (or monkey) baby. If they wanted to demonstrate otherwise, they really should have started there.

If the research is so irredeemable why did the trend show up so clearly as it did?

If the research were well designed, it should be able to clearly answer that itself.

It's clearly been past down throughout generations of monkeys so you're trying to change something that has been a part of human society longer than our ability to make fires.

Firstly, those monkeys are not human ancestors. They resemble humans only in that they are primates. The apes who are ancestors to modern humans diverged from other primates around 20 million years ago.

Secondly, even closely related species (which humans and monkeys are not particularly) can have very different behaviour. Bonobos and chimpanzees are barely distinct species at all, far closer to each other than humans are to either, and yet their behaviour is very different. Inferring the behaviour of humans from monkeys would be very silly.

Thirdly, and this remains the most important point. Humans have such complex intelligence that speculating about their "natural" behaviour at all is kind of silly. Humans are so intelligent that we had to evolve all kinds of mechanisms to make us do the things animals do by instinct. It's one reason why we have incredibly sensitive genitals relative to most animals, because nature can't get us to rub them together by instinct any more so it had to make doing so enjoyable enough that we would choose to do it ourselves.

If telling yourself little stories about how men evolved to work in the finance sector and women evolved to work in sales makes you feel better about yourself, have fun. But it's silly. It's very silly. Humans are far more intelligent, far more adaptable and far less ordered in their motivations and psychology than you're giving them credit for which is why, barring the inevitable man-made extinction event in the next few centuries, humans are the most successful animal in the history of this planet.

 

[AnxietyProne]

On the subject of incels, perhaps society should slightly lower the pedestal upon which sex is placed, and people should stop insulting others on the basis of physical appearance, height, weight, or their hobbies. For example: "basement dweller".

Then maybe people won't feel so bad about being celibate, enough to join a "death cult" over it.

I remember some Disney Channel shows where the topic was unrealistic beauty standards for women. Magazines would have photoshopped models, which would contribute to eating disorders as young girls chased a literally unattainable figure. This seems a little comparable to that. If society says that this one thing is really important, people who can't attain it are going to be seen as, and feel like, losers, which will cause aberrations in behavior and mental states.

if only it were that simple.

After that, how then do you teach them self awareness, which they lack to a man? How do you kill their sense of entitlement? How do you destroy the absurd false dichotomies they feed each other over and over?

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Not if the ideas are as good as you are claiming they are.

Yes even then, see the stuff I mentioned the nanotubes are now become part of literal Secondary School Science syllabuses in part.

Carbon nanotubes have "become big" (there's a joke there somewhere) because it's become possible to practically apply them in areas that will potentially be incredibly useful in the near future. Not because people didn't believe in them.

Except again the idea was buried for years before coming to any real attention. It's taken years for it to be accepted.

The heritability of autism is not well understood, but the features of autism strongly suggest that it is caused by a complex genome-wide range of factors and environmental factors rather than issues over a single gene or chromosome. Autism can suddenly appear in families with no history of autism. If an identical twin has autism, the other twin will not necessarily have it. Twins who are not identical are very unlikely to both have autism. Basically, autism is really weird and it's not entirely clear why yet.

True. Though identical twins can have some mutations happen in to one and not the other after the egg has split. E.G. I know two twins who were identical except for 1 thing. One had freckles round her nose and the other didn't.

In Baron-Cohen's case, it's mostly based on the idea that autism may be partially influenced by prenatal androgens, which may be true. They seem to have some evidence of that. If true, it might go some way towards explaining why autism is more common in males than females, but I don't really know enough about foetal development and sex hormones to speculate there. The thing is, even if it does, we don't know how much, and again, this brings us back to the problem of conflating diagnostic rates with prevalance.

The problem is when you start making claims about autism, and the supposed effects of androgens, that aren't well evidenced or have conflicting evidence. For example, claiming that androgens are responsible for lower empathy or social motivation, and that both autistic people and men have naturally lower empathy and social motivation than neurotypical women. Anyone who has spent much time around autistic people will know that this is not always true. Autistic people often have excessive, painful amounts of empathy, and can be socially motivated enough to learn how to suppress their autistic traits. Some (not all) autistic people can struggle to recognize or understand other people's emotions, but that's typically because they struggle to understand or recognize their own emotions, not because they lack the capacity for empathy.

All in all, it's just a very archaic and insulting characterization of autism, and of men for that matter. While men do certainly tend to lack empathy and some men struggle with social motivation, it's important to remember that these are learned qualities. Much of what we call empathy is a skill you develop by practicing. Social motivation is something you can develop as and when you need it. Girls are taught from an incredibly young age that their social relationships with others are important, so it's not surprising they excel at these skills. That's not to say biology plays no role, but we can't actually know.

Ok the specific bit about men and empathy is more related to the idea of "Emotional intelligence" and not exactly empathy in the traditional sense. A guy can feel empathy for what some-one is going through when they know or suspect it is happening but emotional intelligence is picking up on that without expressly being verbally told. It's about tone, body language and non verbal signals.

It's sort of a version of "Cold Reading" a person

I'm not a zoologist and I can't be bothered to go look up those monkeys, but given that only a handful of monkey species are able to use tools, and none of them are capable of creating tools with moving parts, I'm pretty sceptical of that one. Again, if the point was to measure basic engagement with particular activities, you could have used abstract toys and thus eliminated the possibility of interference.

Well nor are babies capable of that but I can say plenty of baby boys are fascinated with wheels and trying to understand them (I've been told I very much was)

Wild or unsocialized cats do not see you as a bigger, more incompetent cat. They see you as a big, threatening animal. Tolerating humans is something cats have to learn, ideally when they are kittens. Cats are also pretty bad at recognizing human faces. Part of this is that cats rely on different senses, they are more likely to recognize your voice or scent, and since a doll has neither cats don't really care about them.

Dogs can recognize human faces and even read human emotions to an extent, but even then it's a learned skill and not something they instinctively do.

While it's reasonable to believe that monkeys who are fed and exposed to humans might learn to recognize human faces, it's very unlikely to be a natural behaviour. It's even less likely that they can recognize a smooth, cold, unscented plastic doll as a representation of a human (or monkey) baby. If they wanted to demonstrate otherwise, they really should have started there.

So Scented monkey dolls?

If the research were well designed, it should be able to clearly answer that itself.

Except that is the issue even well designed research can't always explain everything observed if there is no other explanation.

Firstly, those monkeys are not human ancestors. They resemble humans only in that they are primates. The apes who are ancestors to modern humans diverged from other primates around 20 million years ago.

And yet the idea is they still share some of the ancient instincts and reactions etc human do.

Secondly, even closely related species (which humans and monkeys are not particularly) can have very different behaviour. Bonobos and chimpanzees are barely distinct species at all, far closer to each other than humans are to either, and yet their behaviour is very different. Inferring the behaviour of humans from monkeys would be very silly.

Thirdly, and this remains the most important point. Humans have such complex intelligence that speculating about their "natural" behaviour at all is kind of silly. Humans are so intelligent that we had to evolve all kinds of mechanisms to make us do the things animals do by instinct. It's one reason why we have incredibly sensitive genitals relative to most animals, because nature can't get us to rub them together by instinct any more so it had to make doing so enjoyable enough that we would choose to do it ourselves.

If telling yourself little stories about how men evolved to work in the finance sector and women evolved to work in sales makes you feel better about yourself, have fun. But it's silly. It's very silly. Humans are far more intelligent, far more adaptable and far less ordered in their motivations and psychology than you're giving them credit for which is why, barring the inevitable man-made extinction event in the next few centuries, humans are the most successful animal in the history of this planet.

It would be nice to think humans are so above the animals that we once were but so much still remains, worse to deny what remains can make people more vulnerable to said remains being used against them. E.G. a number of marketing techniques in advertising rely on the idea of "Switching off" the "Rational" conscious mind and tapping into the far less rational subconscious which works a lot on old instincts like fear response.

Also Human's aren't the only once who get pleasure from sex, true there's not many others but I've heard Dolphins also do.