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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Reducing human behavior to a single hormone is a choice that is not very representative of reality.
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.
Yes, we’ve always known that men who associate more regularly with women than other men, act more like women.
Being less macho isn’t “acting more like a woman”. You can be many without being "macho "
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
