>Why do we have all these studies showing that male and female behaviors are so similar, yet people in everyday life continue to think as if males and females were very separable?
It could be that some gender-neutral behavior patterns are part of the modern Western equivalent of "tatemae", and that they easily appear in studies because of interaction with strangers.
Higher chances of your paper getting rejected because it mentioned gender differences would be enough incentive for academics to mention it as little as possible.
Maybe this is how the branches of Indo-European evolved.
Laryngeals replaced by vowel lengthenings, merging of consonsants, vowel shifting based on other sounds, etc. It's like there were many different events where "Indo-European with a heavy foreign accent" suddenly emerged.
Social media no longer represents "many people are saying it".
The early internet could give an overview of what's being said in general on a particular topic - but today's content is often manipulated to support or attack a particular viewpoint.
You don't need to explain with malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity.
In fact that's one of the roads to fascism - constantly looking for "manipulators" everywhere and other witch hunt types.
The longer I live the more I am convinced that the average person has next to 0 ability for critical thinking. They just sort of stumble between local maximas until they end up wherever they are.
> In fact that's one of the roads to fascism - constantly looking for "manipulators" everywhere and other witch hunt types.
Bollocks. Studies suggest as much as 35% of social media posts are fake, and as high as 40% on some forums. This isn't Fascism or paranoia, this is just how large tech companies make money. Like, if you don't understand how AI and scripting align with marketing and propaganda goals then you're gonna get played like a rube every time.
The problem is that "marketing works even when you understand how marketing works", and that it is very hard to maintain constant vigilance.
I’m not sure the comment fields are considered by media organizations or public figures… like, at all. I remember talking to a journalist about a series they were working on, they said the feedback they’ve gotten has been overwhelmingly positive and no one had anything bad to say about it. The comments on their articles were absolutely negative and vitriolic. I don’t think anyone with a shred of influence or responsibility in western society reads them.
> I remember talking to a journalist about a series they were working on, they said the feedback they’ve gotten has been overwhelmingly positive and no one had anything bad to say about it. The comments on their articles were absolutely negative and vitriolic.
There are two quite different possible interpretations for that fact pattern.
For an article like this, the negative comments would be aimed at the people in the article, not the journalist. So the article can be a great (muckraking) article, and the comments might also be vitriolic, and everything is good if the rage is well-aimed.
Both Serbo-Croatian and Hungarian have these multi-character letters, but these Unicode points were created for the typographical needs (or rather, bad habits) of Serbo-Croatian. The "Dz" was probably included for the use-case where someone transcribes something in Macedonian.
One example can be seen on the Croatian 2kn coin, which features a tuna and a title written T U NJ.
Hungarian has more of these multi-symbol letters (with each letter having 1-3 symbols. It also has some other complications, such as having two "sz" in a row appear like "ssz", unless separated by a line break or a hyphen (then it's just two "sz").
IMO it was probably a mistake to let the article focus so much on Hungarian, as these Unicode points don't seem to be created for the purposes of the Hungarian language.
Another interesting aspect of modern human evolution is the fact that brave men have a higher risk of dying in war, extreme sports, etc.
Will male risk behavior be more similar to female risk behavior, 10000 years from now?
Nowadays, the use-case for masculine bravery is more or less obsolete. It had a purpose when there were wild animals roaming around human habitations, but nowadays it may very well trick a man into becoming a war casualty.
Historians of the future might look back on pro-conscription advocates as those who stood in the way of the modern human.
You're discounting the idea that being a brave man still has any reproductive advantage. I doubt very much that a fearful man is as attractive to women as a brave man, even in modern times.
I know several people who have escaped a war-torn country and had a successful life elsewhere, instead of getting affected by military propaganda, and possibly losing everything just because of other people's territorial conflicts.
That’s a pretty binary way to describe a spectrum of behavior. The stereotypical sniveling coward, sure, he’s probably not going on a lot of dates but what about someone who’s prudent or careful about the risks they take?
One especially big confound here is remembering the distinction between having sex and having children. From an evolutionary standpoint, the latter is the only thing which matters and unlike animals humans have contraception which completely changes the situation. From an evolutionary perspective the stereotypical bad boy who’s sleeping around constantly might not have even as many children as the cautious, financially stable guy who is monogamous because the former guy’s partners are looking for fun while the latter’s is intentionally trying to start a family.
Fwiw I upvoted you. To be fair to Murrow he's talking about not being afraid to resist McCarthyism.
As for general jingoistic propaganda, it's as old as time. I'd also consider it immoral and irrational. Interesting though, as it benefits societies and not (fighting) individuals, and so should have a complex evolutionary dynamics (maybe like with worker bees). _Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori_.
Gotta wonder what happens if aggression is bred out of the population genetics, then the aliens/AI/lost tribes/more isolated countries attack.
As the world moves back to increased nationalism, some cultures are increasingly militaristic while others become keyboard warriors. Over evolutionary time, that could create different enough human subspecies? Maybe we'll see Klingons after all.
I believe that last half of a century of relative peace in the West is the direct result of the "bravest" (whatever that label means here) in two world wars. So that less brave men (and women) could build in peace. Unfortunately the population of brave men mostly recovered and we are ready for the next great war in Europe that will devastate everything.
It's different when you're randomly drafting conscripts from the overall population though, vs having "brave" genes self-select into mortal combat before they can reproduce.
There is no pure randomness in draft. People who know better are more likely to dodge it than "brave" people. Especially if the you draft significant percentage of men. You'll find out that nearly all that managed to avoid the draft are not "brave".
evolution in humans is about who survives, right? more specifically about who survives before having children who themselves survive with or without their parents
being brave may still be a quality if it's paired with other qualities
10k years is a lot, try predicting what happens in 10 years..
Cultural influences matter a lot too. Even if the parents past down certain genes, a lot of that can be suppressed by environmental or cultural factors, everything from lifestyle to propaganda.
The bad feeling I get from cashless is "what if some future political conflict will lower the status of my ethnicity to such a low position, so I'll be denied buying food and nobody will care?" or some similar scenario.
> The bad feeling I get from cashless is "what if some future political conflict will lower the status of my ethnicity to such a low position, so I'll be denied buying food and nobody will care?" or some similar scenario.
I don't mean to be obtuse, but how would cash solve this? If someone is bigoted against you and won't take cash from you, or marks up the price or engages in some other less obvious manipulation, and you're not in a position to rely on law enforcement, then what can you do about it?
For credit cards, my access can be disabled when the two networks are coerced into blacklisting me. For cash, the imaginary evil powers would have to convince tens of thousands of individual stores to do the same. And even then, it would be impossible to enforce, because with a cash payment, there is no record that could be checked to enforce compliance.
> For cash, the imaginary evil powers would have to convince tens of thousands of individual stores to do the same.
You seem to be implying that this is somewhat unlikely.
History is full of this exact thing happening.
Recent history.
Until the 1970s in the US it was legal, and common, for businesses to refuse to do business with a woman without a male's permission. There were only a precious few municipalities where this was not the norm.
Grocery stores until the mid-1900s did not actually sell products to women. Women would pick out and receive products and a bill would be sent to her male supervisor for his approval and payment. Even in large cities, this wasn't limited to the stereotypical geographic regions that seem to thrive on oppressing minorities (although the large coastal cities were the first to do away with it), it was very often illegal for a woman to live alone so single women would live in boarding houses with chaperones and curfews.
There seems to be a great cultural amnesia about all of this happening-- despite there being millions of people who are still alive to which it happened.
My mother joined the Women's Army Air Force in the early 1970s because she could not rent, open a bank account, use store credit, or obtain automobile insurance without her father's permission-- which he would have given but she being who she was (and still is) wouldn't ask for in a million years. Servicemember-associated organizations had no such compunction.
There is no functional difference in "opressivenessabilityivity" between cash and cards.
There is no nameless, faceless, "them" waiting to oppress you, oppression is a function of broader civil society.
> Grocery stores until the mid-1900s did not actually sell products to women. Women would pick out and receive products and a bill would be sent to her male supervisor for his approval and payment.
I find this hard to believe, how would that work in large and anonymous cities where nobody knows each other? If a woman went grocery shopping they would send the bill to where exactly, just a random address she gives them? What if she gives them fake address?
I doubt that shops would refuse for example a widow if she had money from military or inheritence, also men were often away and the women did not just starve to death.
Because it's not true. Maybe mid-1800s, but by mid-1900s women could totally use cash. Not credit cards though, 1974 is when women were allowed to get those. In other words, the exact opposite of what that comment is saying.
Up until the invention of the self-service supermarket you could not walk into a grocery store, pick out a can of Campbell's Chicken Noodle Soup, flip a dime to a cashier, and walk out with it.
The self-service grocery store did not exist until WWI.
They did not become common until some time around WWII.
They did not go extinct until the 70s.
My grandmothers could not (and did not) use cash to buy groceries because there were no cash-and-carrys near them. They needed an account, until the 60s-70s in rural Tennessee and Missouri where they lived.
Everything was paid by check. Drop off the order, pick up the order, bring home the bill, the husband sends in a check.
There was an exact and precise 0.0% chance in many parts of the United States of America of a single unwed woman getting an account at a grocery store without a male cosigner.
So the alternative is, what, you can spend whatever is left in your wallet, but the rest of your money is still frozen? The difference from maintaing physical cash seems very marginal. Or are you suggesting we all pull all our money out of bank accounts and store it in cash under the bed, just in case one day we get unpersoned? The costs of doing that vastly outweight the expected benefits.
This is a strawman argument: You've setup a scenario where cash isn't very beneficial, and then show why it's not beneficial.
Before the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, women could only use cash. Sure it would have been way cooler if they weren't discriminated against, but many women still only survived because of the cash option, and none of them would have said "Well since I might run out of money anyway go ahead and make it impossible for me to use what I have".
It's not a straw man, it's literally the scenario the guy I was replying to was talking about ("if your accounts are frozen"). If you had a bank account like a normal person, and then you are surprised by your account being frozen, you are going to be almost as screwed whether physical cash exists or not, because you won't be keeping that much cash on hand anyway.
Cash was the normal way to pay for things before the ECOA so I don't think it's comparable to today, where nobody uses cash anymore. You used to be able to be paid in cash, or in a cheque you could cash at the grocery store. Now you probably need to have your pay deposited into a bank account, which you may only be able to access electronically, so if your account is frozen you are far more screwed.
The risk is at the point of entry of your money, not the point of exit.
Find me an employer who will happily pay you cash directly in 2024. Find me a way to get your finances in order without a bank that then has to respect laws surrounding transactions.
The fact we can't obfuscate cash purchases does not reduce the ability of your government to deny you access to your money in a bank.
"They take away your freedom in one area X, and when they want to take away your freedom in another area Y you go, it's ok, we have bigger problems like X".
>Why do we have all these studies showing that male and female behaviors are so similar, yet people in everyday life continue to think as if males and females were very separable?
It could be that some gender-neutral behavior patterns are part of the modern Western equivalent of "tatemae", and that they easily appear in studies because of interaction with strangers.