• 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


RCs and nootropics: a male thing?
#91
(16-05-2016, 04:39 AM)Glitterama Wrote: Perhaps more relevant to the actual thread subject, this may be one factor why drug use amongst gay people is far higher than it is for straight people:
[Image: f-15.png]
Less responsibilities such as childcare and marriage. Then of course the 'scene' and club culture, looser attitudes towards casual sex (and the whole chemsex) thing. I'd hazard a guess that the higher incidence of mental health issues is also a factor, so probably self-medicating too. Point is it's rather reductive to suggest drug use is simply a gender thing; it's far more complex and people use and misuse drugs for various reasons.

I wonder how much location has to do with it as well? Gay people have, at least historically, moved towards urban centres. And the demographic with the highest rates of drug use by a fair margin is what ACORN label 'Urban Prosperity':

[Image: MNYuaBu.png]

In fact, what really stands out is how similar most of the numbers in the two charts are. Maybe gay people aren't particularly more likely to use drugs than straight people and it's just that they live in places where people tend to take lots of drugs anyway.
Reply
#92
(16-05-2016, 03:33 AM)Azcat Wrote:
(16-05-2016, 02:27 AM)TheNeutralizer Wrote:
(16-05-2016, 12:59 AM)Azcat Wrote: I think the clock ticking idea falls under personality. Hormones can certainly influence a decision, but how much depends on the person. I can't logically find a reason to have a child myself, I don't see the appeal. Some people can. Either way, a lot of factors go in to that decision.

I'm 35 and the four women I'm closest with are around the same age. No clocks are ticking. Our shared interests are down to our personalities, no doubt our lack of interest in kids is a similar deal.

We are simply too busy doing things we see as our priorities in life, just as mothers are too busy to do what we do because their children are one of their many priorities. No wrong or right, just personalities making personal choices.

Plenty of broody men out there. Again many different contributing factors, but ultimately the person makes the decision.

Insecurity comes from giving a shit about what people think of you. The extent of that insecurity depends on how much of a shit you give. That's not gender specific.

Making a list of insecure women doesn't prove anything. Could be biased data, could more likely be an indicator that men just don't open up to you.

I know men with the same level of insecurity you describe, so my experience says it's not gender specific. Still, it's just one person's experience and I certainly wouldn't list it as evidence.
The biological clock is very real. It simply doesn't exist in men the way it does in woman. Women get older, their chances of baring children decrease, the chances of the child that they do bare suffering from downs syndrome or other chromosomal disorders also increases exponentially for every year they gain. Insecurity about not having children is not even relevant, woman have a biological clock for baring children, it's a fact.

I agree the biological clock is real, but my point is that women who don't want children don't feel the clock ticking; it's irrelevant to their life choices.

I read about the concept in my 20s, I felt like I should write to my future self explaining why I dont want kids. I was so scared of it magically overpowering my logic and sending me baby crazy. Pure ignorance on my part, nothing changed. No moon beams blasted me to reproduce, it has had no noticeable impact on my decisions.

I like the way my friend responds when she's asked if she'll have kids, "That ship has sailed, but I didn't want to spend 16yrs trapped on a boat with a bunch of kids anyway."

I should have been more clear in my post, but the insecurity I'm talking about is in general and I'm saying that men also have insecurities as deep as the women you listed regardless of a biological clock.

Well that is another point: the fact that we cannot prove that women have the insecurity I listed is true in a broader sense does not give us any facts on how it is with men. It might be that men have more insecurities, similar amount, less or (and I expect this) other kinds of insecurities.

I am going to look into this when I have time, interesting to me.

When it comes to men and grouppressure, selfreinforcing like I  don't know who said: this has been studied and men are more likely to deviate and females are indeed more likely to conform. However: these studies are from the 80s to mid 90s we can wonder how much has changed 30 yrs ago. I tend to think that groupbehaviour hasn't changed a lot but still would like to find newer studies on it.

Here the summ it up:

Men and women conformity

Under surveillance men are more likely to be LESS conform. Now what is surveillance?? Is any group of some sort surveillance then  yes in groups men are less likely to conform. Women remained the same regardless of the setting.

WIll see if I can find neweer studies.
Reply
#93
(16-05-2016, 06:34 AM)J.S. Wrote: Here the summ it up:

Men and women conformity

Under surveillance men are more likely to be LESS conform. Now what is surveillance?? Is any group of some sort surveillance then  yes in groups men are less likely to conform. Women remained the same regardless of the setting.

WIll see if I can find neweer studies.


Quote: Many psychologists attribute the gender differences in conformity to the perceived differences in class status of men and women. One possible interpretation of differences in conformity is the implicit status cue that suggests certain individuals are believed to be of higher status by group members
.

Quote:Eagly, etc. also argue that men's nonconformity results in successful influence due to their higher status. In reference to occupational status, this study found that the perception of women as being more compliant in a job setting than men came from having a lower occupational status. Therefore, they claim that women are not as able to move about as freely from a group consensus as men. Thus, women are seen as conforming more than men.

Quote:The gender relevance of a topic triggers different response styles for men and women. It has been found that people are more likely to individuate themselves with respect to gender relevant issues. Therefore, since most of the studies contain male-based material, men have shown a stronger tendency to individuate themselves.
Reply
#94
(16-05-2016, 08:18 AM)niflheim Wrote:
(16-05-2016, 06:34 AM)J.S. Wrote: Here the summ it up:

Men and women conformity

Under surveillance men are more likely to be LESS conform. Now what is surveillance?? Is any group of some sort surveillance then  yes in groups men are less likely to conform. Women remained the same regardless of the setting.

WIll see if I can find neweer studies.


Quote:  Many psychologists attribute the gender differences in conformity to the perceived differences in class status of men and women.  One possible interpretation of differences in conformity is the implicit status cue that suggests certain individuals are believed to be of higher status by group members
.

Quote:Eagly, etc. also argue that men's nonconformity results in successful influence due to their higher status.  In reference to occupational status, this study found that the perception of women as being more compliant in a job setting than men came from having a lower occupational status.   Therefore, they claim that women are not as able to move about as freely from a group consensus as men.  Thus, women are seen as conforming more than men.

Quote:The gender relevance of a topic triggers different response styles for men and women.  It has been found that people are more likely to individuate themselves with respect to gender relevant issues.  Therefore, since most of the studies contain male-based material, men have shown a stronger tendency to individuate themselves.  

Yes, it is hardly scientific. Attributing is only needed when you have no proof. So you suggest some things rather then get us facts. So we will look into this. But that seems typical for psychology: when you ask for a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study on various therapies it is very hard to find...So it is mostly therapist/psychologists claiming rather then proving a thing.
Reply
#95
(16-05-2016, 11:51 AM)J.S. Wrote: Yes, it is hardly scientific. Attributing is only needed when you have no proof. So you suggest some things rather then get us facts. So we will look into this. But that seems typical for psychology: when you ask for a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study on various therapies it is very hard to find...So it is mostly therapist/psychologists claiming rather then proving a thing.

Call me a stickler for tradition, but in most circles the established practice is to actually read the sources you use to support your argument. All of these quotes are from the link you posted.
Reply
#96
An increased risk of a crash as a driver can, in part, be explained by the age and gender differential in risk-taking behaviour.

"The challenge for public health professionals is to determine suitable strategies to modify risk-taking behaviour in young or male drivers.
This research on driving from Queensland (AU) shows that age and gender are indicators of car crashing."

Young male drivers more risky (?)

As a moderately avid stormchaser myself (tornado/spout chaser) and the season in the US being well underway while our season in NL is yet to start, I am now looking more and more at the weathermaps to look out for some good supercellconditions. Like today I am checking my  cameragear, get everything ready. Looking into some long zoom lenses etc.

It is considered dangerous to be a stormchaser mainly because of tornadoes hitting you. IS this connected to the fact that there are very  very few female stormchasers? In The Netherlands I can go out with  fellow stormchasers and get on to a chase with various groups, but all are 100% male. On fora we have very  few females and they are not interested in tornadochasing at all. Just weahter.

So how is this with other hobbies and sports: are females not only less into Research chemicals but also into other may be somewhat reckless pastimes? Is the reason that they are dangerous or just other interests?

Might be another angle to look at this. How many females are into skydiving, mountainclimbing etc? Is it more even there or is it out of balance too?

(16-05-2016, 12:18 PM)niflheim Wrote:
(16-05-2016, 11:51 AM)J.S. Wrote: Yes, it is hardly scientific. Attributing is only needed when you have no proof. So you suggest some things rather then get us facts. So we will look into this. But that seems typical for psychology: when you ask for a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study on various therapies it is very hard to find...So it is mostly therapist/psychologists claiming rather then proving a thing.

Call me a stickler for tradition, but in most circles  the established practice is to actually read the sources you use to support your argument. All of these quotes are from the link you posted.

I know that. You did note I had some questions about what it meant. Older studies in a rapid changing society might be less informative is one, what you write (suggestions) is another. I did  not find newer more conclusive studies yet but also have other things to do.
Reply
#97
(16-05-2016, 01:02 PM)J.S. Wrote:
(16-05-2016, 11:51 AM)J.S. Wrote: Yes, it is hardly scientific. Attributing is only needed when you have no proof. So you suggest some things rather then get us facts. So we will look into this. But that seems typical for psychology: when you ask for a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study on various therapies it is very hard to find...So it is mostly therapist/psychologists claiming rather then proving a thing.
...

I know that. You did note I had some questions about what it meant. Older studies in a rapid changing society might be less informative is one, what you write (suggestions) is another. I did  not find newer more conclusive studies yet but also have other things to do.

I thought you were claiming I hadn't attributed my sources, but now I see that you're criticising the standard of your own reference.

As to double blind, randomised controlled studies of therapies, you may want to think through how that could ever be possible. Do you expect a therapist to be unaware of whether they're delivering the real therapy or the placebo? Double blinding just isn't possible where there's a trained professional in a therapeutic relationship with their patients. If you dispense with the requirement for placebo and control against another psychotherapy or medication then you can singly blind by using independent evaluators who are not aware of which therapy an individual has received.

Ordinary psychology studies tend to be compromised by the limited participant selection available - participants are mostly WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic).
Reply

Reddit   Facebook   Twitter  




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

   
DISCLAIMER
Any views or opinions posted by members are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UKCR staff team.