Because it would be unethical to try to deliberately provoke children into aggressive behaviour, the boys were then asked to complete a commonly used cognitive task to measure how aggressive they felt in response to the feedback. This involved completing a series of words. For example, the letters “gu_” could become either “gun” (aggressive) or “gut” (not aggressive).
What the fuck is this drivel?
This ‘study’ doesn’t study aggression at all. It studies how different people perform in a game of mad libs and then calls some of that aggression.
I’m sure there is a way to measure toxic masculinity. But I grew up in the video game era when people thought playing Mortal Kombat would turn you into the fucking Columbine shooters. It’s all bullshit fake pseudo-psychology.
Be very wary of this fake science. There are good researchers out there but this methodology described here is some of the worst shit I’ve seen for proxy aggression ever.
This ‘study’ doesn’t study aggression at all. It studies how different people perform in a game of mad libs
Exactly. Word completion tasks are impossible to separate from confounding factors: the subject’s vocabulary, their family ideolect, their family culture, their local culture, their ability to spell (especially a problem in English), children’s tendency to try and please the adults around them…
I’m sure there is a way to measure toxic masculinity.
There are several. Many would even pass IRB review. This “study” has so many flaws that it should be a practice exercise for first-year research students, not something that The Conversation, of all publications, is flogging.
Do you have research experience in psychology or something, to unequivocally say that word completion tasks are BS pseudo/fake science?
Isn’t this backwards? Isn’t it on the onus of the psychologists out there to prove that word completion tasks are good measurements for aggression?
Statistically / politically speaking, the traditional measurements are like, “Gun Murders per Capita”. You know, actual people killing each other, serving as the basis of an argument or indicators of aggression.
You’re talking about statistics and sociology. The article talks about a psychology research. How do you make research in psychology?
Isn’t this backwards? Isn’t it on the onus of the psychologists out there to prove that word completion tasks are good measurements for aggression?
Word fragment completion tasks have been used for decades, what makes you think no one made sure it’s an effective way to measure things like aggression? Quick google search for example https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053482212001039
Statistically / politically speaking, the traditional measurements are like, “Gun Murders per Capita”. You know, actual people killing each other, serving as the basis of an argument or indicators of aggression.
That’s not what the study is about though. It’s about the relation between aggression and masculinity, how do you measure this with a murder per capita number? You also cannot play with someone’s masculinity and give them a gun, and see what happens.
Science is not perfect, especially in a field like psychology. You can’t read people’s mind. So we find alternate ways to measure things. Doesn’t mean it’s BS pseudo/fake science. It’s just science.
I’m a little curious - what’s your personal involvement in psychological research? Which university do you work at, or where is your work published? By what expertise do you claim that the study is false?
Of note, this is published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Jesus Christ, how about countering his actual argument instead of this passive-aggressive appeal to authority? Anyone with actual experience in academia and/or expert knowledge of a subject can tell you there’s a lot of drivel that pass peer review, but more importantly, this is Lemmy, a place where people can discuss articles and other content posted to the platform regardless of academic credentials.
I agree with OP that the methodology described in the quote seems incredibly shaky and far-fetched. If you don’t agree, let’s hear why.
passive-aggressive appeal to authority
This fundamentally misunderstands the nature of an appeal to authority. The authors of the paper are–presumably–experts in their field. This paper is within their field. Thus, we can induce that this paper is likely correct. This is inductive reasoning. Arguing that it’s informal logical fallacy is intentionally misleading.
If you don’t agree, let’s hear why.
No.
The authors of the article made a claim. They sourced the claim. Their methodology was checked by peers. The results were published. So this already stands on it’s own.
The person saying that it’s bullshit has produced nothing other than their own personal beliefs to demonstrate that the authors, the reviewers, and the journal were incorrect. They have given absolutely zero evidence to support their claim, other than assertions that they’re not backing up with anything.
Similarly to the above, we can use inductive reasoning to say that a person that has no expertise in this area is like not making a correct claim. Their argument might be free from logical fallacies, and still be entirely wrong because they know fuck-all about the subject. Could the authors be wrong? Of course. But when you balance their expertise, against the respondent’s apparent lack of expertise in this field, which is more likely?
I think it’s underappreciated how much traditional masculinity persists because it is attractive to women.
While I agree, it must be stated imo that it’s not about the toxicity itself. It is about the interdépendancy between this toxic masculinity, and the submissive feminity.
Women are tought to be passive and fragile. Thus they need a man who is proactive and strong to lead her and protect her. Women are expected to hide what they think in order to not offend people around them, and thus a man is supposed to state things both for himself a’d for her.
Toxic masculinity and submissive feminity go hand in hand. They are, in fact, both toxic, especially together.
Personally I prefer to refer to the broader term “toxic gender roles” as it covers a wider range of interdependent behaviors. I also think it goes deeper than just submissive femininity. It’s the old nature vs nurture argument. It’s not all societal. Some of it is biological. Larger, more physically imposing-looking men being preferred by the majority of women cuts across all times and cultures.
I don’t buy this nature thing. All societies have been exposed to violence, and women make babies. Then the same causes will lead to the same consequences.
This is a bit off topic, but I really dislike terms like toxic masculinity or traditional masculinity.
I prefer talking about it in terms of “prescribed masculinity” which I think is the actual problem here. If you enjoy being a sports bro, who lifts weights, and is really into cars. Awesome! If you enjoy table top games and reading, awesome! Something completely different? Believe it or not, also awesome! As long as you’re not using it as an excuse to be an asshole to someone, men should pursue whatever will make their life the most fulfilling. But as far as defining masculine as some specific traits or interests, fuck that noise.
I’m pretty sure toxic masculinity only applies to the toxic parts, right? Surely no one thinks getting excited about the Nissan Z is toxic?
I’ve seen plenty of people equate toxic masculinity to “traditional masculinity” (for lack of a better term) and make fun of guys that fit that mold or, alternatively, get very defensive as though you were attacking their hobbies.
I agree with your sentiment though. I just think… since toxic masculinity hasn’t been clearly defined and what’s toxic will vary significantly from one person to another… that a much better term is “prescribed masculinity”. It also helps prevent that knee jerk reaction some will have when you bring up the term. (I find most folks will agree that prescribed masculinity is a fucked concept, but may get defensive over the concept of “toxic masculinity”)
Also I’m not a car person but that’s a slick looking car.
I don’t like segregating toxic behavior into perceived gender roles. It’s just toxic behaviors. Which exist across all genders and spectrum.
I watched my grandmother’s mental state decline into pretty bad dementia before she died. Sat on her bed next to her now than a few times because she couldn’t figure something out. “Your brain is being an asshole gran”
But sometimes it wasn’t the dementia that made her an asshole, it was being both in 1934 and moving through a world war having to raise her younger brothers at an early age have her peculiar views in the world and never believed the world moved on.
So she treated some people very poorly by today’s standards. She believed people but also institutions didnt listen to women. And ya know what? She lived in a time when she literally had to get her husbands approval on many things we would find just as if not more than the current situations women still face on somethings. Forget all about how her husband spent little time at home, and even when he was home from working trades out of town, he spent most of his time on his hobbies, not the home unless gran had to get him to do something, but she can manage all the admistration of household without him most of the year, but she needed to get his permission for other people, not because he needed her to get his permission to handle the finances. But that was just an annoying part of dealing with the bank, to them it was an inconvenience that they had to put up with, not much more inconvenient as bank holidays when you needed to go to a bank, which you had to go often in the days before debit cards
That was the environment that she formed significant preceptions about the world.
I got a bit off track, toxic behaviour is what we should be framing this problem as, its all part of the same problem, with the same bad behaviours expressed differently reliant on your gender expression.
Though i might be able to be convinced to think of it as toxic worldviews, as a worldview is already multifaceted and ones toxic behaviours are quite often caused by what worldviews you choose to express
Culture resists change. That’s its role. And it’s all but impossible to force lasting change in a particular direction (see former Soviet republics, for example). If there’s no societal benefit to a change, it won’t happen.
Overworking has no social benefit besides few people getting extra rich yet somehow we are going that way.
Whether overwork is a forced change or happened spontaneously is a subject for further study. I suspect that it was, initially, an organic response to a societal need. The ultra-wealthy saw an opportunity and took advantage to try and force it even more in their favor. Whether this lasts is anyone’s guess, but my money is that it won’t.
Because it works.
Best thing that ever happened for my mental health was embracing traditional masculinity.
