I was reading similiar statistics from Finland for fun. Young children (0-4 years old) are more likely to be killed by the mother, but older (>4 years old) more likely by the father. Men accept the use of violence in discipline more often than women, but women actually use it a bit more (note that things like pulling the child's hair are considered child abuse in this case).

The child murder sample size is pretty lousy though, 292 in 24 years.

I believe that physical force is by far the worst way to hurt someone. It could have something to do with my "psychopathic" tendencies granting me near immunity to any other type of damage.

I think my main point is however, that physical damage is always accompanied by psychological damage (humiliation, fear) as well, so it is already two-in-one by itself. It's hard to beat that.

I do not think that physical force is always motivated by a desire to hurt someone, but I believe "non-physical" force is even less so. And I do not really see much of a difference between say murdering for money and murdering for perverse pleasure out of the murder itself. I would prefer the murderer-for-money simply because he is probably less self-destructive and therefore less dangerous, but from the perspective of justice or whatever you call it, I am not any more outraged by one than the other.

I wouldn't rape and pillage either, but it's not remorse that's stopping me, it's my sense of justice. If my sense of justice told me to rape and pillage, I would do it with minimal remorse.

I think by my standards you are more nice and by your standards I am more nice.

I'm accusing you of being oblivious of the chain reaction your statements would typically release in most people's mind. Given your intellect I find it hard to believe you genuinely cannot see it coming. I guess I am accusing you of not deliberately taking care to not be provocative. I was even giving indications that the chain reaction is starting, but you did nothing to stop it. As a result, as you saw, the bomb went off.

But the end result of this whole ordeal is that I like you more than before. A rather reverse result. How appropriately reminiscient of the kind of manipulation you accuse women of...

Holy ****, madnak, you're beasting this. I had no idea this was such a highly charged subject for you.

Including a "do not wish to define" option was redundant. Simply not voting for either of the other choices already does that job.

If by beasting, you mean rolling out pamphlets of absurdly tenuous towers of biased reasoning perched on scraps of equivocal hard evidence and an assload of gutlevel editorializing, where all inconvenient considerations are handwaved away in the quest to win some pointless Man versus Woman videogame war, then

I just had to vote "Do not wish to define" because of this.

Yeah, me too of course. Thanks for taking the trouble for the sake of improving SMP.

No it doesnt. Because that way i see someone that cares enough to vote and doesnt define themselves as man or woman (for whatever reason) and votes 3 whatever this may mean (if some of you vote this, out of spite , then good for you XYZys). I cannot get any information from page views after the first few hours in terms of those that didnt vote i mean but read the thread. From data accepted the first few hours i know that only 20% of those that read maybe even as much as 30% vote. So compare 2% to something like 70-80% of people that read but never voted (maybe they were reading while not logged as well). Keep in mind many people read these threads but never post and obviously these are usually not logged.

I had no doubt the % of women in SMP is low to begin with(but didnt want to give that impression on the opening post obviously) but its a bit frustrating it is that low. If it were like 10% one could at least imagine every now and then in all threads a position from a different angle could be seen. Although i am pretty much safe in the sense that people who love math and are theorists in general tend to have wide enough imagination to be able to have empathy and kindness and significant ability to appreciate what it would be to be woman when answering, offering them a capacity to not only be men but human beings in the general sense - above gender- as well. Still of course nothing like the real thing.

I doubt only 2% women read 2+2 though (as a main draw from poker i mean a lot more than 2% of poker players are women by far) which is pretty atrocious when you see such low numbers in SMP.

Look at the quality of many posts here in this thread and you will see that many men have the capacity to see things from the perspective of women and draw such understanding from the relationships they had with women all their lives as well as their ability to read and observe society at large.

Yes. The options should have been:

"Man"
"Not a man"

Because if you do not wish to define, one is certain: you are not a man.

OP, thanks for the clarification.

A paradox for another thread, imo.

lol

Can you also comment on Vantek's posts itt?

Maybe I misused the expression, but I meant it in the sense where he puts a lot of effort in detail and length, and doesn't miss responding to any point.

A milder, less metastasized version of the same, but on the "other side." Though that's perhaps unfair to him, given how he's qualified and relativized his claims.

In any case, the whole dividing up of human beings along gender lines within a charged and judgmental evaluation of which gender's overall "score" beats the other in various areas is fundamentally ******ed.

But...you're here, aren't you?

The last option confers an honorary vagina upon the chooser.

The link below leads to a blog by Ms. Linda Lee.
http://linda.bridgeblogging.com/?p=22

Ms. Lee states:
Basically, she believes that they have the mental capacity, but by a combination of factors -- some biological, others cultural-- women just do not compete with the same intensity that men do. Though they could if they started at a young age.

The argument that Bridge, chess and poker champs need to start playing very young has some worrying connotations.

Well, men dominating competetive things is hardly surprising. I don't think even the most hardcore gender equalitists have problem agreeing that men are more competetive.

The more interesting question is, why do men dominate math, physics, IT, hell, the academic elite in general.

I also believe they have the mental capacity, just not the interest. Just as men have the mental capacity to comprehend various social intricacies, just not the interest.

Women's brains are smaller, which could be a factor. Also, their breasts are bigger.

Because it is a little complicated. I can't decide who my target audience is.

Describing how someone who is getting beat on should change is completely different than describing how the person beating someone up should change.

Women are just like guys. Sometimes they say mean things. Mostly they don't. When they say mean things, it is generally helpful if there is someone around who tells them that being mean is bad and unacceptible.

For the recipient of the meanness, it is best to view their meanness as being caused by some type of discomfort. Focusing on the other person's issues makes you (through some complicated psycho-social interactions) look less like prey to them. It happens to also be true, generally, but truth is not as important than actionable info.

I will admit that when I do put my foot in my mouth, I take it out quickly and do damage control. Not sure if someone socially unaware could do this. Pretty sure it isn't possible.

The key then, is to figure out a way to make it easy. Teach the physical cues one by one" "Her playing with her hair is preening behavior. She likes you."

Teach social behavior: Share something slightly private about yourself. Wait until she shares something private about herself. Say, "that is interesting" <pick one of the two, based on reality> "tell me more" or "I know what that is like." Then share something slightly more private. Repeat as necessary. Do not lead with "I like to drown kittens."

Some run. Regardless, negative emotion is negative. I find that I can be quite cranky depending on how I feel.

At best, the women wander away toward greener pastures.

Some women do. Same as men.

Most don't.

When they are mean, there is always a ring leader. When they are nice, there is always a ring leader.

Helpful information for the beaten and the beater. Focus on the ring leader. Focus on not being a stupid sheep.

It matters a great deal. It determines the best strategy to stop or mitigate the meanness.

I am lucky enough to have people who will tell me that I look silly when I look silly. I don't take personal responsibility.

Could be, but it's certainly not as simple as bigger->better. Amygdala was mentioned previously in this thread. Male amygdala is bigger than female amygdala, but the female amygdala shows much higher activity when for example she is shown pornographic images.

edit: it wasnt pornographic images, just emotionally disturbing images whatever that means.

To heckle from the sidelines. Also, I don't want to miss gems like:

Any spectacle that draws people to the field...

Interesting. I may be the other way around (not immune to physical pain, but hypersensitive to other forms of stress).

I don't know, getting a standard beat down isn't the end of the world by a long shot.

I don't know about justice, but I think the one who does it for the pleasure of hurting the victim is meaner.

This I don't get. If you don't have strong feelings about justice, then why do you care?

Probably. I think my "niceness" is less stable, and thus less meaningful. But who knows.

We can put those thoughts to rest. All's well that ends well.

Probably pictures of a shirtless Phil Hellmuth.

But you're thinking in target audience terms. You're not just considering your actual opinions, but how you phrase them, and how your words will affect your audience, and what kinds of interactions will play out from that.

One thing you clearly are is a fixer. And I wonder if you'd be disappointed with nothing to fix. Sounds like it, from something you said about being bored if you had nobody to fight.

Fixers are interesting. Do they fix others because they have their own **** together? Or do they have their own **** together because they fix others?

I don't see many female fixers. Fixer-upper-ers, but they're different.

And they may take it to heart, if the someone has influence with them. But it's a different mechanism. Well-meaning men will change their behavior when they learn it's bad, because they want it to be good. Well-meaning women will change their behavior when they learn it's unacceptable, because they want it to be acceptable.

This is advice on performing social assassination. That truth is much less convenient, but that hardly changes it. Focusing on the other person's issues undermines their credibility. You can do this with nothing more than body language. You establish dominance and the mean person's social reserves are instantly depleted, they have to be submissive in order to save face.

"Damage control." Interesting choice of words.

Better to just make "I like to drown kittens" work for you. Okay, scaffolding is needed because that's such an advanced technique, but one of the fastest routes to rapport is to inspire some emotion and then spin that emotion into the one you're looking to evoke.

Start with something offensive, she'll build herself up, then keep your wits about you and change the axis of rotation (play it off as a joke, deftly change the subject, even abrupt disengagement seems to work wonders for the more skilled guys).

Once you can switch off her "I'm offended" button, converting that energy into anticipation, enthusiasm, or sexual tension results in instant intimacy.

I admit, I'm not usually brave enough to do it, but when social alchemy works it's great. But the fact that lead can be turned into gold says something about the artificiality of social engagements. I think that something is good for outcast types to understand.

Wasn't there a study where patients were given a mild stimulant, and depending on the environment in which they found themselves, subjects became either euphoric or irritated?

The women who do this are of no concern to the high-status man.

When you give that advice to people, what happens as a result?

Sometimes. But not really. The observers matter as much as the mean person. Predicting the mean person's response is fine and well, but putting them to difficult choices is more reliable. Instead of setting a trap and relying on them to walk into it, force their hand by taking the initiative and leaving them to choose among a range of unappealing options.

Sure. You value your heterosexuality.

The problem with socialism is that it springs from a mindset that favors group norms over freedom to be and think what you wish. That is sufficient to make it evil regardless of the niceness of the participants. And it is what women champion in their personal lives and attitudes.

Have a read of Bitter Winds and come back and tell me that socialism is a good idea. It shows the kind of society you get when well meaning, nice people try to educate others to be similarly well meaning and nice. When the good of the group is favored strongly over the good of the individual.

Women enforce their own little socialist world among their friends using their charm and emotion as weapons. Men are far more prone to let people be, to throw a bone to people who are different. I think those two facts are the core of why madnak and I consider men to be nicer, all things considered.

I'm curious as to the original source of this thought.

It's crazy that I prefer to have meaningful relationships rather than pretend and lie to use girls to get casual sex, after which I feel like ditching them? In practice - and it is only your actions that matter - I seem to be the person who respects women more, even though you are the card carrying feminist.

Are you a self loathing male? Is that what this is all about?

Anyway thanks for taking the time to respond seriously and with candor. I have a high opinion of you sir.