Poitical Compass Test and Political Typology Quiz

[Jotunir]

There are inherent biological differences between most men and women. However, societal/cultural constructs dictate what are typical masculine/feminine traits. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp.

I disagree with this. I think biological differences btween man and woman are generally what dictates the typical masculine and feminine traits. But the individual deviations are so large that on a person to person basis these typical traits dont have to be true. Just like how a man isnt necessarily taller than a woman, he is for example not necessatily more competitive or more into sports than a woman. But I do actually believe that on average these stereotypical masculine or feminine traits are generally accurate, and I believe that this is primarily based in nature and not nurture.

Afaik there isnt much evidence for nurture being the deciding factor here, which means that your post merely expresses an opinion, even though you make it sound like a fact.

"Emotional" is a stereotypical feminine trait. However, men are just as emotional as women. It's how those emotions are expressed that is different. Boys are told " real men don't cry" and boys learn to hold back these very normal emotions. "Real men are tough". Boys learn to be aggressive. Crying and anger are both emotional responses. Girls learn that it's okay to cry, but not be angry. Boys learn that it's okay to be angry, but not okay to cry. Thus, women exhibit more, what are perceived to be, "emotional" responses to things than men because of how culture has shaped their development.

Boys don't "learn" to be agressive, testosterone plays a big role in that regard. Testosterone and estrogen play a big role in the way emotions are expressed. That is also why women are more "Emotional" than men. Of course society can change this natural tendencies to an extent, but that does't mean we have to atribute our behaviour only to nurture.

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

There are inherent biological differences between most men and women. However, societal/cultural constructs dictate what are typical masculine/feminine traits. I don't understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp.

I disagree with this. I think biological differences btween man and woman are generally what dictates the typical masculine and feminine traits. But the individual deviations are so large that on a person to person basis these typical traits dont have to be true. Just like how a man isnt necessarily taller than a woman, he is for example not necessatily more competitive or more into sports than a woman. But I do actually believe that on average these stereotypical masculine or feminine traits are generally accurate, and I believe that this is primarily based in nature and not nurture.

Afaik there isnt much evidence for nurture being the deciding factor here, which means that your post merely expresses an opinion, even though you make it sound like a fact.

"Emotional" is a stereotypical feminine trait. However, men are just as emotional as women. It's how those emotions are expressed that is different. Boys are told " real men don't cry" and boys learn to hold back these very normal emotions. "Real men are tough". Boys learn to be aggressive. Crying and anger are both emotional responses. Girls learn that it's okay to cry, but not be angry. Boys learn that it's okay to be angry, but not okay to cry. Thus, women exhibit more, what are perceived to be, "emotional" responses to things than men because of how culture has shaped their development.

Boys don't "learn" to be agressive, testosterone plays a big role in that regard. Testosterone and estrogen play a big role in the way emotions are expressed. That is also why women are more "Emotional" than men. Of course society can change this natural tendencies to an extent, but that does't mean we have to atribute our behaviour only to nurture.

This is actually a great point. I believe that the behavioural effects of hormones are pretty well established, in particular the relation between testosteron and aggressive tendencies. (once again though, these things are on average. A male with high testosteron levels is not necessarily more aggressive than a male with lower testosteron levels)

[Dolan]

A male with high testosteron levels is not necessarily more aggressive than a male with lower testosteron levels)

What is this based on?

[Goodspeed]

On the obvious fact that testosterone level is not the only factor that decides how aggressive someone is.

[chris1089]

A male with high testosteron levels is not necessarily more aggressive than a male with lower testosteron levels)

What is this based on?

It's obvious. You only need one male with high tetosterone who isn't very aggressive to make this statement true.

[Dolan]

Idk if that's actually true, that's why I asked. Because it's a known thing that injecting T is likely to lead to - among many side effects - aggressive outbursts.
And there is lots of evidence that men with higher T levels are more likely to engage in aggressive behaviours, eg:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6X06000304
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6X10002989
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27524498/

So, it's likely that this statement is false, unless there are some stronger factors (context, personality, etc) which inhibit aggressiveness in higher T males.
But then, that's a bit cheating, in biological terms, because what you see is not the pure effect of T, but the overall result of an intersection of factors.

[RefluxSemantic]

For that statement to be false, aggression levels need to be defined only and only by testosteron. Which is not the case.

[fightinfrenchman]

Idk if that's actually true, that's why I asked. Because it's a known thing that injecting T is likely to lead to - among many side effects - aggressive outbursts.

This was a good King of the Hill episode

[spanky4ever]

I can state my statements perfectly, and do not need any test for IT

[Dolan]

For that statement to be false, aggression levels need to be defined only and only by testosteron. Which is not the case.

And that's irrelevant because what inhibits a behaviour doesn't disprove what causes it.

[RefluxSemantic]

You need to read the statement again.

[scarm]

Well i think both of you are right. Yes your statement @RefluxSemantic is only wrong if literally 100% of men and aggression levels are defined by testosteron like chris said, but that makes it a synthetic statement with very little additional content, which is why i think it's fair for dolan to argue that testoteron levels are a main driving force behind aggression levels. Put differently, yes, in terms of formal logic you are right, but its fair for dolan to argue that if testosteron is the main factor in aggression, your statement has very little analytical content, making it "false", although it is technically putting something in your mouth you never said.


Clarification (jeez i am bad at this): If dolans point, that T makes aggressive behavior more likely is true, your point, that men with high T are not necessarily more aggressive is still true, but it is very likely that there is a strong correlation between t-levels and aggression, meaning your statement while formally true does not have much explanatory power anymore. Yes, not every man with higher T-level will be more aggressive than one with lower T-Levels in that case, but the likelihood that he is would be at 95% for example.

[Dolan]

You need to read the statement again.

And what is the point of that statement. What do you actually establish if you say that there could be other factors that could inhibit the expression of aggression, caused by higher T levels?
Does this make the relation between T levels and aggression less significant?

Because if you take the statement literally, men with higher T levels are more aggressive, as it's proven in research, though that's not necessarily always expressed.

[Goodspeed]

Idk if that's actually true, that's why I asked. Because it's a known thing that injecting T is likely to lead to - among many side effects - aggressive outbursts.
And there is lots of evidence that men with higher T levels are more likely to engage in aggressive behaviours, eg:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6X06000304
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6X10002989
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27524498/

So, it's likely that this statement is false, unless there are some stronger factors (context, personality, etc) which inhibit aggressiveness in higher T males.
But then, that's a bit cheating, in biological terms, because what you see is not the pure effect of T, but the overall result of an intersection of factors.

The fact that there's a correlation between T level and aggression isn't disputed. Your implication was that T level is the only thing that influences aggression.

[RefluxSemantic]

Well i think both of you are right. Yes your statement @RefluxSemantic is only wrong if literally 100% of men and aggression levels are defined by testosteron like chris said, but that makes it a synthetic statement with very little additional content, which is why i think it's fair for dolan to argue that testoteron levels are a main driving force behind aggression levels. Put differently, yes, in terms of formal logic you are right, but its fair for dolan to argue that if testosteron is the main factor in aggression, your statement has very little analytical content, making it "false", although it is technically putting something in your mouth you never said.


Clarification (jeez i am bad at this): If dolans point, that T makes aggressive behavior more likely is true, your point, that men with high T are not necessarily more aggressive is still true, but it is very likely that there is a strong correlation between t-levels and aggression, meaning your statement while formally true does not have much explanatory power anymore. Yes, not every man with higher T-level will be more aggressive than one with lower T-Levels in that case, but the likelihood that he is would be at 95% for example.

My statement was intended to specifically emphasize exactly what you wrote in this post in a concise manner. I'm quite sure I succeeded in doing what I set out to do.

[Dolan]

@Goodspeed
I don't think I implied that. I just thought that Reflux's statement claimed that men with higher T levels are not more aggressive, because they don't always manifest it.
You can be angrier without manifesting it and that could be the result of higher T, as well as higher cognitive power to inhibit what you naturally feel.
But then, that doesn't really disprove anything about the relation between T levels and naturally feeling more aggressive, given the right context. It just complicates its expression, because it's not manifested.

[RefluxSemantic]

Semantics aside:

A meta-analysis revealed that the correlations between testosterone and aggression were small, but significant in both men (r = 0.08) and women (r = 0.13; Archer et al., 2005). Thus, the relationship between testosterone and aggression is not particularly strong in humans. Indeed, a review of the literature suggested that testosterone should be considered as promoting dominance seeking behavior, rather than solely aggression (Eisenegger et al., 2011).

From: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00081/full

[Dolan]

Well, duh. Considering that humans are shaped by culture, obviously how aggression is expressed is not purely animalistic anymore, it involves making social gestures that pass a message.
It's also because in most societies there is a pressure to not engage in aggressive acts, which are punished sometimes with prison. So the aggressor will, most of the time, channel that aggression into a culturally shaped expression, like dominance behaviours.
You're also more likely to gain something by doing that, than by just aggressing.

[wardyb1]

Odd test. Bad wording on a lot of it.

[Jotunir]

Odd test. Bad wording on a lot of it.

Are you a commie?

[wardyb1]

Odd test. Bad wording on a lot of it.

Are you a commie?

lmao... what?

What on earth gave you that impression? How does 45% right wing imply commie?

[vividlyplain]

All things indicate NOT a commie. ^^

[deleted_user]

I'm 91% normal

[chris1089]

I'm 91% normal

Weirdo

[princeofcarthage]

Why is right wing on left and left wing on right?