• MadhuGururajan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Of course they are. The more they get to know their classmates the less ignorant they become and hence the less weird behaviors they exhibit.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Eh. Males on their own don’t tend to exhibit that behavior. It’s less ignorance and more ape like competitiveness. When you put them together the testosterone compounds and leads to machismo, which results in a bunch of dumb shit.

      • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        This argument is saturated in assumptions and is difficult to swallow.

        The idea of lack of close physical contact promoting bad behaviour is a well studied phenomenon in many areas, including road rage, and online discourse.

        • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          So I actually read the article — you should try it some time — and it literally states males exhibit this behavior due to competitiveness.

          So no, my argument is not saturated in assumptions. It’s saturated in experience, and backed by science.

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        There are studies of men growing up with sisters are more likely to act in a woman’s best interest, than the stereotypical macho douchebag persona

  • cynar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    After a quick read of the article, it’s not measuring how matcho they are, but how competitive they are. Even that is by proxy. Men who have lived with more men will tend towards a game of skill for a larger payout, over a fixed payout.

    I personally consider the risk management of being competitive to be an extremely important life skill. Knowing your capabilities requires practise and comparison. Men also tend to change their behaviour patterns when a women is present, particularlyyounger men. “Machoism” is often just our tribal bonding instincts kicking in. It let’s young men learn the limits of their own capabilities and the capabilities and temperament of these they are working closely with.

    • Shou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Testosterone spikes inhibit risk assessment. Testosterone spikes based on social circumstance rather than the time of day. When there are smaller males/females around you can dominate, testosterone spikes. When the other males are bigger, stronger and more aggressive, testosterone doesn’t spike. Making you avoid conflict instead.

      A lack of risk assessment, along with increased impulsivity, is a feature. Useful to get males to initiate fighting.

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Testosterone has complex effects. It is also one of the few hormones that significantly changes in the male brain. Learning to both control and utilise its effects is critical to the proper development of a man.

        Testosterone changes your risk assessments, rather than jamming them. Uncontrolled, it can be problematic. It takes practice and training to channel that in productive directions. Without that practice, it’s effects are either bottled up (with a tendency to explode) or lead to fighting, or crude domineering. Neither is healthy.

    • forensic_potato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      After a quick read of the article

      Definitely NOT what you want to read when talking about academic studies and statistics. It unfortunately makes you sound like an armchair expert

      Edit: I misunderstood the comment and was unnecessarily rude

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        3 months ago

        I wasn’t reading and critiquing the underlying paper, I was primarily checking if the headline and methods matched up. They don’t. Confidence and controlled risk taking are very different from “macho”.

        They also seem to make the correlation ≠ causation fallacy, though that might be fixed in the actual paper. Is it living in a mixed house makes men less confident, or are less confident men more likely to end up in a mixed house?

        I’m definitely no more than a reasonably informed layman in sociology. I do have scientific training, however, so can spot the more glaring signs of a journalist going beyond what a paper says, or the data backs up.

        • forensic_potato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          My mistake for misunderstanding what you meant then! I thought you were referring to the scientific article itself, not the news article

    • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      Being less macho isn’t “acting more like a woman”. You can be many without being "macho "

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        What’s the difference? Genuine question. I frequently see standard male behavior touted as “toxic masculinity” on this platform, so I’m not really sure what you consider manly, but not macho.

        • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Toxic masculinity is generally founded on the idea that the world owes you something because you’re a man. Positive masculinity is a rejection on that. It’s using your strength and intelligence to contribute to yourself, your family, your community, and the world. Knowing when to give and when to take.

          Tim Walz is a good example of positive masculinity. He’s manly af. A soldier, a football coach, a hunter, a leader, a father, a husband. He’s used those roles to improve himself and the world around him, he fights against those who hurt him, his family, and community. I’m not arguing he’s perfect or the only example. Being perfect isn’t part of positive masculinity, but he’s a recent example that has gotten a lot of attention.

          • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Some examples could include competitiveness with other males, being less risk averse than females, and being more analytical than emotional,

            • gap_betweenus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              And what exactly out of those things is considered to be toxic in general or is it more that the extreme forms of those things are considered to be toxic?

              • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                You asked for examples of standard male behaviors, not toxic male behaviors.

                Edit: oh, you’re asking which of those, people here would consider toxic? Pick one! Put a negative spin on it, and you can probably find that sentiment pretty easily around these parts.

                • gap_betweenus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  What do you mean by negative spin? You don’t think that for example extreme competitiveness can be negative - or what is the point you are trying to make.

    • auzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Ffs.

      I operate a rock climbing meetup and hiking meetup and most of my mates are women.

      In my experience people who act macho are also the least macho, and they do it because they’re scared or insecure

      Acting toxic isn’t acting like a man. It’s just an indicator they never left high school.

      When the situation gets bad, it’s often the non macho ones who take control and fix it when hiking.

      Also, I’ve met world record mountaineers (including a first time 7 summits guy). They just act normal.

      • Shou@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        “Acting toxic isn’t acting like a man.”

        Yes it is. As much as being kind, protective, supportive, abusive, cruel and every other behaviour is. Words and ideas do not define what acting like a man is. Men acting the way they do does. Which is countless of ways.

      • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        I didn’t say macho, and you added toxic. Men and women behave differently. It’s natural. We have different chemicals pumping through our systems and driving our decisions. But men who spend more time with women behave more like women. There’s a study right here talking about it.

        • gap_betweenus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          We have mostly the same chemicals just different concentrations. Also humans in general show wide variability of behavior, it helps to get out there to realize we are all very similar and different at the same time and there is almost no benefit in thinking in gigantic buckets that encompass half of us.

          • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            You’re downvoting pretty benign responses, and adding a lot of your own preconceptions to what I’ve said, so I’m going to pass. Have a great day though. Keep-on sending it on the wall!

            • auzy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              That’s a very reasonable question which you’re clearly trying to avoid answering. You’re generalizing women.

              None of the women I know fit into a specific category . My down votes don’t make what you’re saying valid.

              Just so you know, it’s possible I misinterpreted what you said, but it sounds like you’re implying it’s a negative thing. Some of the most masculine blokes I know are actually the most supportive people I know. People fit a spectrum.

        • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I know plenty of women with high levels of testosterone in their blood and very little estrogen. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            You know the hormonal levels of several acquaintances? That’s odd. Just because you know people outside of the normal ranges doesn’t change the fact that among people in the ranges that are considered normal by medical science, men have far higher levels of testosterone than women, and lower levels of estrogen. The fact that outliers exist doesn’t change that proven fact.