Comments on: Trait by trait, sexes don’t differ much

By: Vince

Vince — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 05:24:29 +0000

Actually, on looking at it a second time, it appears it did look at mate selection criterion. This indeed I find hard to believe. Moreover, having lived in the United States for about 4 years but having grown up in a more traditional culture, I think my observations largely do validate the claim that “the opposite may be the case in cultures that are far more prescriptive of male and female roles”. The reason for the difference however, I don’t believe to arise primarily from different cultures so “prescribing roles”. My experience in the US confirms what I suspect to be the case; that the general zeitgeist especially amongst women that consider themselves “liberated from traditional roles” mirrors the exact problem such studies would face in traditional cultures; only such problems are now reversed. Couple this with the fact that questionnaires were used largely in the experimentation; in other words, the data was based on what respondents thought to be true about themselves. It’s not a stretch to see why what respondents think to be true about themselves will be a function of what they perceive as what they ought to think about themselves which as I have maintained would be influenced largely by the dominant ideology, even counter-ideology of the times.

By: Vince

Vince — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 05:03:07 +0000

Did the study look at the variety of traits that each sex considered in it’s mate selection strategy and the position on a spectrum each trait occupied as per sex? If there’s any area in which there is the most divergence between the sexes, I believe, it is specifically here. What about the influence of hormones that vary significantly between the sexes such as testosterone on specific traits or predispositions? By and large, putting these together, it is difficult to conceive of empirical data that supports a minor divergence of the sexes

By: Jill

Jill — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 06:25:50 +0000

Very refreshing findings. We had the decade of ‘gender behaviour caused by socialisation’, followed by the decade of ‘brain studies show significant gender differences’. Such an interesting topic

By: Simon

Simon — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:38:58 +0000

Great to see some an evidence challenging the unhelpful dichotomy between genders. I have long thought it unfortunate that the Mars/Venus idea, which many people embrace, subsumes the much more interesting aspects of human relationships. While no doubt mental categories are useful shortcuts to understanding, they do us a disservice in this context. Many people simply do not understand the concept of a statistical average. For example, if on average, women were slightly more empathetic than men, on average, this is rather useless information when dealing with this individual man or that individual woman. The information we need is about this individual. Reading Mars vs Venus will not help this. Congratulations to the researchers for an interesting study. I hope it is expanded and any methodological limitations addressed, as this is important work.

By: sally

sally — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 07:13:38 +0000

Brilliant. Not surprised at all.
I have been arguing for some time against the sex-typing of the characteristics themselves.
They are just characteristics and can all be found in everyone to varying degrees.
It’s also hard to completely delineate what a person is born with, and what is developed socially.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 03:18:48 +0000

Good to see clarity applied once again to a place where over generalization is rife. Even when clear differences can be extracted such as in physical capability measurements, I think it is a sobering fact to consider the following;

Whilst the fastest person (running) on earth may consistently be a man, the fact remains the fastest woman on earth runs faster that more than 99% of all people (including men). In effect this highlights that often individual differences are far greater than differences found in the extremes or within population.

When ever we come across an individual we must accept that such generalisations have little or no value, after all we never meet a statistically significant cohort in person.

I ask our last two “comment’ors” how they have attempted to avoid these pitfalls when making there own generalisations ?

By: required

required — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:17:27 +0000

Design your own study already. Don’t forget to show variation in your results, along with those that perhaps prove your theory, substantiated by your hypothesis, which will of course have its own operational definition and accountable statistics. And feel free while doing so.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:25:34 +0000

I am not sure I’d agree with his interpretations. Also, there are differences which I don’t think his study looked at. It’s good to know there are many similarities between men and women, but I think there are many differences, too, which this study apparently didn’t look at.