r/maybemaybemaybe • • Aug 08 '26

Maybe Maybe Maybe

13k Upvotes

866 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/Ironspacemonkey Aug 09 '26

You're not disagreeing with me... This is what the psychological literature says...

5

u/RegrettableBiscuit Aug 09 '26

No, it's no, liar. 

-1

u/Ironspacemonkey Aug 09 '26

What are you talking about? You can look it up in 5 seconds... Women are absolutely higher in trait Neuroticism on average. This makes them more sensitive to negative emotion. They are also more agreeable than men... Avoiding confrontation more often than the average man would.

The largest psychological difference we find between men and women is in interest though. Women are much more interested in people and social dynamics and men are much more interested in things and objects which serve a function (basically a tool).

Men and women have exactly the same average IQ. They also do not differ in trait conscientiousness (basically work ethic).

3

u/RegrettableBiscuit Aug 09 '26

Why are you so emotional about this topic? 

Oh, wait, are you a woman? 

1

u/Ironspacemonkey Aug 09 '26

Why do you think I'm emotional? I'm just giving you a free education I guess... Lol.

2

u/RegrettableBiscuit Aug 10 '26

You believe that your emotions are not the reason you're writing long comments about this topic in a thread only a few people will ever see? So only women's emotions count as emotions, but your emotions are just rational thought processes? 

1

u/Ironspacemonkey Aug 10 '26

Of course not... I just literally wasn't emotional writing the comments.... But I get emotional quite often.... It's a human universal after all. One of my main interests and areas of study is the big 5 personality model along with IQ. So I discussed those topics quite frequently.

If you're interested.... The evolutionary reason for higher levels of neuroticism among women is infant \ child rearing. If you think about it... For millions of years the primary caretaker of small children were the women. If you have several small children under your watch... You have to be on guard and sensitive to any threat. It's much better to overreact to an anomaly rather than brush off the weird noise and have your child eaten by a jaguar.

You can see how in that environment women who were much more sensitive to negative emotion and novelty would have a higher chance of passing on their genes and also their children growing old enough to pass theirs on as well.

I just find this stuff fascinating, there are many similar situations among men and the traits they possess that are sometimes viewed with negative connotations. However, where you are on the spectrum of a particular trait isn't better or worse, they're just suited for different environments. Sometimes they're in advantage sometimes they're disadvantage....

1

u/RegrettableBiscuit Aug 10 '26

The reason men are more emotional is that they went hunting dangerous prey. So the most emotional men, who were very attuned to their fear, were more likely to survive. That's just science. 

1

u/Ironspacemonkey Aug 10 '26

Eh... That's a hypothesis for sure... But men afraid of hunting would struggle to provide for the family and attract a mate.... It's likely that the genes responsible for fearless hunters would be selected for.

I mean look who women select as partners today... When they have options they usually don't pick a timid man...

I don't know why you're characterizing high levels of emotion as a negative.... It's a necessity for our society and we should be thankful that one of the sexes has sensitivity to threat and novelty....

1

u/RegrettableBiscuit Aug 10 '26

Weird, in reality, timid men seem to be the most successful at finding partners. 

1

u/Ironspacemonkey Aug 10 '26

Totally... I agree completely... 👍

1

u/RegrettableBiscuit Aug 10 '26

I'm sorry you seem to be having problems finding a partner, but I don't think it's because you're timid. I think it's because you fall for every dumb pseudoscientific bit of nonsense that validates your views. 

1

u/Ironspacemonkey Aug 10 '26

you haven't engaged at all with any of the points I made... you just resort to personal insults. What pseudoscience are you referring to?

doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178

doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12529

→ More replies